#its not like anti ned either though | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

traincat · 3 years

Note

Disregard my last ask because the latest issue raised a troubling question that I, as a black man, feel the need to clarify with you, a woman. That whole whole Ned Leeds/Betty Brant business is sexual assault via deception right? Like you know more about Clones and Spider-Man 616 than I but I feel like that’s besides the point because it happened to Betty. She is carrying the child of whom she thought was her dead ex-husband. And Ned clone has to know he is a clone. He has to know. Unlike Ben and Kaine, he has the awareness and information of the Jackal and the awareness of his progenitor’s death.

Or am I reaching too far and reading too far into things?

I'm glad you came back and asked this specific question because it's definitely something I have a lot of thoughts on, and I’m glad you asked my thoughts on it as a woman because I think this is one of those comic book storylines that’s hard for me to divorce that fact from -- the fact that I’m a woman definitely plays into how I view this storyline specifically and how it effects me, in ways I don’t think were necessarily intended by some of the writers involved in its ongoing arc who were not looking at things from the same perspective I’m coming at them from. I definitely don't think you're reaching or reading too far into things -- I think that is what's being presented on the page, albeit likely without authorial intent. Just as like a general disclaimer, I'm not closely following Spencer's run for the sheer reason that I'm not enjoying it very much, although I'm aware of the general directions it's taking through friends and social media. But I actually think this Betty/Ned issue goes back pretty far.

First things first, I think Clone Conspiracy really wreaked havoc on how Spider-Man as a series has always handled clones. Pre-Clone Conspiracy, there was a very clear clone narrative going on: clones are their own person, they are not direct copies or replacements of the original. You see this with Ben Reilly and you see it with the Gwen Stacy clones. Clones are treated as their own individuals, even if they have to struggle to get to that point -- there's even an issue of Spider-Man Unlimited where Ben and Betty go on a date. Betty doesn't know that Ben is Peter's clone -- he's introduced as his cousin -- and they both reflect on how you can't go back to the way things were. So even though Ben has all of Peter's memories regarding his initial romance with Betty, the narrative makes it clear that Ben and Betty cannot recapture that connection or that exact relationship.

Here's where Clone Conspiracy changed everything, in my opinion for the worse: Clone Conspiracy's clone narrative is that these clones are, essentially, the original person. I believe the Marvel wiki still actually lists the end of Clone Conspiracy as 616 Gwen Stacy's issue of death instead of Amazing Spider-Man #121, because Clone Conspiracy treated that Gwen not simply as a clone with all of the same memories, but as essentially Gwen resurrected through a cloning process. The Billy Connors who was cloned is treated as the same Billy Connors who was killed by his father in Shed (Amazing Spider-Man #630-633). And the clone Ned is treated as the same as 616 Ned. This is a mess, to put it simply, because it goes against all the previous Spider-Man cloning narratives and, honestly, most popular sci-fi clone narratives, and it's seriously undermining decades of good Spider-Man storytelling in ways that Slott didn't address and that Spencer seems unwilling to. It probably wouldn't have been a very big deal -- a frustrating one, but not a big one -- if all of the clones had perished at the end of Clone Conspiracy, but they didn't. Billy Connors escaped, and it's immensely frustrating to me to see Peter treating the Connors family reunion as something he can tolerate when Curt Connors ate his kid, and the Ned clone slithered away in the gutters to, I assume, spite me personally.

Which brings us to the current Betty Brant storyline in Amazing Spider-Man, where Betty has showed up heavily pregnant and informed Peter that the child is Ned's.

Yeah, I would say this is in fact the worst possible part. (ASM (2018) #67) Just speaking for myself, I'm generally not anti-pregnancy or baby storylines in comics, but this one is making me very uncomfortable for reasons beside Spencer being apparently unable to find any way to fit Betty into his stories without her showing pregnant.

So I'm actually going to take this back way, way to when Betty and Ned first got married, with some explanation of who Ned Leeds is for the uninformed, because, especially with the MCU's Ned Leeds in the mix, he's not exactly the world's most well known Spider-Man character. (I’m sure @ubernegro, who is much more well read on Miles Morales’ canon than I am, has thoughts on how the MCU’s Ned borrowed heavily off the character of Ganke Lee with a 616 Peter Parker character’s name pasted over him.) Ned was initially introduced as Peter's competition for Betty's affections -- Ned was older than both Peter and Betty, a working reporter, and presented as the more "stable" option compared to Peter, who of course Betty vastly preferred before circumstances tore them apart. Ned and Betty married in Amazing Spider-Man #156 and jetsetted off to Europe for Ned's job. This is where the cracks in the marriage began. Betty later reveals that she felt abandoned by Ned in Europe, to the point where she was able to come back to New York without his immediate notice -- as a woman, it's very easy to read their relationship at this point as being one filled with, if not abuse, then emotional neglect. Betty and Peter have a quick extramarital affair at this point -- Peter has just broken up with Mary Jane and Betty claims she and Ned are separating -- that persists until Ned returns and punches Peter over it.

(ASM #193)

(ASM #229) Betty and Ned reconcile off panel shortly thereafter, but that's pretty far from the end of the story. It's implied that the problems Betty and Ned previously had start to develop again, namely that Betty feels abandoned by Ned, that he is inattentive and, again, as a woman, it's hard not to read it as emotional neglect, if not abuse -- yet. Betty does start another affair at this point, this time with Flash Thompson, and Ned starts acting strangely. It would later be retconned that he was suffering the effects of hypnotism by the Hobgoblin, but like I said, that's a retcon, and what was happening at the time was that Ned was acting erratically in part because he was the villainous Hobgoblin. Ned becomes controlling, threatening, and verbally and physically abusive towards Betty.

(ASM #284)

(ASM #283) "I suppose you think it's all right for a wife to cheat on her husband!" "No -- but I won't let you hurt her, either." Leaving aside that Peter also had an affair with Betty, something he's conveniently forgetting in the above panels, I've always really liked this exchange, because the narrative makes it clear through Peter's response to Ned that, whatever the audience may think of Betty for cheating on Ned, it is reprehensible for Ned to publicly humiliate her and/or physically abuse her as a response.

Then Ned Leeds dies in Spider-Man vs Wolverine and he's revealed as the Hobgoblin posthumously shortly thereafter and that remains canon for years and years until it's later retconned out, as comics are wont to do. But that's not really that important for this conversation -- my point being, at one point in Spider-Man canon, it's made fairly clear to the reader that Ned is an abusive husband. He emotionally neglected and abused Betty several times over and physically hurt her at least once on panel, with the clear intent that the reader should realize that he is physically hurting her. So for me as a reader and as a woman, this has always been a really uncomfortable relationship. I have a problem with later Spider-Man comics claiming that it's "not Ned's fault" that he abused Betty because of the retcon that he was hypnotized, and I have a problem with the MCU making Betty and Ned into a cute summer fling in Spider-Man: Far From Home, because I feel like Ned's clear abuse of Betty either gets excused or entirely glossed over. And I don’t think the initial abuse storyline is bad -- I think there’s some amount of value in portraying Betty as a woman who marries too young, who experiences a terrible marriage, and who then spends years recovering from that marriage, which was the case up until they retconned Ned’s abuse of her as a side effect of him being controlled by the real Hobgoblin. What I’m specifically uncomfortable with is the post-retcon attitude that since Ned didn’t really mean to abuse Betty, it’s perfectly fine to portray the relationship in a positive light when even before Ned’s abuse became physical that wasn’t the case. I think that’s ultimately really irresponsible storytelling. As a reader, I’m not against soap opera style storylines -- someone getting impregnated by a cone of their ex-husband seems pretty par for the course. But there’s so much additional context here that I still haven’t entirely processed how I feel about this Betty storyline, except that what I feel isn’t positive.

So yes, I would agree with you when I say I think there’s quite a lot of deception involved in Betty’s pregnancy storyline -- the Ned clone didn’t tell her he was a clone, even though he had full knowledge of that fact, just as he had full knowledge of how badly the original Ned treated Betty over the course of their relationship -- that renders their sexual encounter and Betty’s pregnancy uncomfortable for me as a reader, to put it mildly. I don’t think it’s out of character for the Ned clone, given that he acts much like the original Ned: he’s selfish and controlling, withholding information from Betty to suit his own needs. The tragedy of Ned and Betty isn’t that Ned died, as more recent Spider-Man stories like to portray it -- including this one, where Betty doesn’t have the knowledge that a) the Ned she reunited with was a clone and not the original and b) that that clone later died. (ASM #816.) The tragedy is that writers continue to force Betty Brant into Ned Leeds storylines instead of letting her as a character grow past him, and that the only way Spencer thought to include her, one of the longest running Spider-Man characters, back in the story was to have her appear starry-eyed over carrying the child of (the clone of) her abusive ex-husband, and the tragedy is that nobody writing more recent Betty and Ned interactions seems to realize that Ned was a villain not because he was briefly the Hobgoblin but because of how he treated Betty.

#betty brant #ned leeds #marvel comics #long post/#wednesday spoilers #traincat talks comics #*replies

91 notes · View notes

hale-13 · 3 years

Text

Febrile

By Hale13

For the Summer of Whump Day 23 - Sick

“Don’t,” Peter grouses, spitting out the last bit of bile in his mouth in the sink in the men’s restroom at Midtown and pointedly ignoring the look of disapproval both Ned and MJ are giving him in the mirror as he rinses his mouth out and washes his hands.

Words: 2101, Chapters: 1/1 (Complete), Language: English

Fandoms: Spider-Man (Tom Holland Movies)

Rating: Gen

Relationships: Peter Parker & May Parker, Peter Parker & Tony Stark

Characters: Peter Parker, Ned Leeds, Michelle Jones, Tony Stark, May Parker, Helen Cho

TW: Vomiting

Read on AO3 or below the line break.

“Peter,” Ned’s voice is exasperated and he looks irritated. MJ’s face is still (mostly) an indifferent mask but he can see her eyes brows pulling in the way they do when she’s concerned. “This has been going on for three days now,” he complains. “you have got to tell May.”

“Sure don’t,” Peter says, drying his hands off on a scratchy paper towel and trying to surreptitiously blot at his sweaty face before tossing it in the trash.

“You’re an idiot,” MJ tells him with an eye roll and a soft shove of her shoulder. It completely throws off Peter’s limited equilibrium and makes him sway into the wall. Ned’s glare becomes even sharper.

“I’m fine,” Peter tries and even he can hear the lie in his words now. He totally isn’t fine. He’s not fine at all actually. He’s had a fever, vomiting and stomach cramps for going on three days now and he’s just not used to getting and staying sick this long since he got bitten by the spider. A cold or a twenty-four hour hell flu? Sure. Consistent nausea and a low to mid grade fever for seventy-two hours? Unheard of.

“This is pointless,” MJ’s voice is monotone as she tosses Peter his phone which he fumbles, just barely catching it with the tips of sticky fingers.

“When did you take my phone?” He asks confused.

MJ guides him out the door and towards the front office – the exact opposite direction he needs to be going if he’s going to make it to his chemistry class. “I took it from your pocket when you were re-enacting the exorcism. Happy should be here in like ten minutes.”

“MJ,” Peter whines, not putting up a fight when Ned grabs his other arm to help with the pulling and directing. “I don’t need to go home.”

“Yes you do,” Ned’s tone is firm. “No one wants your flu Peter.”

“Alright that’s… fair,” he admits. “But my homework-,”

“We’ll get it for you,” MJ reassures as the office comes into view. She pushes him into one of the chairs sat outside and marches in to speak to the secretary. Peter pouts and crosses his arms. Yeah he feels like shit and he really just wants to sleep and, sure, his lower abdomen is really cramping and hurting but he got shot two weeks ago and the pain isn’t that bad. He can totally handle it. “You’re signed out,” Michelle tells him when she comes back, offering Ned a note to excuse his tardiness. “Let us know that you didn’t die okay loser?”

“Bye Peter!” Ned says brightly, back to his normal self now that he knows Peter is actually going home.

His friends finally gone, Peter drops all pretense and lets his face rest against the cool wall next to him, letting his eyes slip shut in relief – his forehead was burning. He pulled the sleeves of his hoodie over his hands and shivers. Maybe it is good that he goes home. He can take a nap and recuperate and be back at school tomorrow completely better.

Yeah. He just needs to nap.

“Well your scary girlfriend wasn’t kidding,” Mr. Stark’s voice rips Peter out of his near-sleep and has him blotting out of the chair, nearly falling over if he hadn’t caught himself on the way. “You look like shit kiddo.”

“Mr. Stark,” Peter squeaks, surprised at seeing his mentor at his freaking school what the hell. “What uh… what are you doing here?”

“What does it look like?” Tony asks with good humor, looking at Peter over the top of his AR glasses with a concerned smile, eyes scraping over him in a clinical way. “I’m here to get you.”

“Uh no offense, but why?” Peter asks, tripping over his book bag on the floor and falling back into the chair. Tony raises an eyebrow.

“Because I’m one of your emergency contacts,” he answers like this is the most obvious thing ever and Peter blinks a little in confusion. Mr. Stark is one of his emergency contacts? Since when? He opens his mouth to ask this very question when a sudden bout of nausea rolls over him and he, instead, scrambles to his feet and down the hall to the nearest bathroom.

He barely makes it to the sink before he starts gagging and dry heaving, nothing coming up but leaving him feeling dizzy and light-headed. Peter leans his head against the porcelain of the sink with a low moan, gagging again on the end and leaning his face back over the sink to drool out the excess saliva in his mouth.

“Yikes,” he hears Mr. Stark mutter behind him and then a calloused hand is running carefully through his hair and resting on his forehead. Peter pushes his face into the cool palm subconsciously and keeps his eyes closed as he tries to push the nausea down. “Yeah you’re definitely coming back to the MedBay with me.”

Peter lets out a wordless whine but doesn’t protest beyond that. It has been three days of this after all – maybe it is a good idea to consult with a professional?

“Come on buddy,” Tony says as he slings Peter’s arm over his shoulder and starts dragging him out of the bathroom and towards the entrance to the school. “You have a date with Dr. Cho and your aunt is waiting to hear the results of her exam.”

Happy actually looks concerned when Peter sees him standing outside of one of the many town cars Mr. Stark owns and he doesn’t say anything when he takes Peter’s bag from Tony to put in the front seat. The leather of the back seats is cool and the interior is darkened by the tinted windows and Peter lets out a sigh of relief, resting his head against the window; already half asleep.

The drive is, thankfully, quick and Peter dozes through most of it – still nauseous but able to hold it down for the most part. Soon enough they pull into the underground garage of the Tower and Tony is hustling him into the elevator which rockets them up to the MedBay floor without either of them having to say anything.

“May wants you to call her once you get settles,” Tony says, rapidly texting on his phone.

Peter squints his eyes at his mentor. “I’m not sure how I feel about you two texting,” he says.

“Oh we’re besties,” Tony teases, pocketing the phone with a shit eating grin. “We have coffee every other Wednesday.”

“I… don’t know if you’re serious,” Peter says, concerned. He probably doesn’t want to know to be honest. The doors of the elevator trundle open and Tony steers Peter into an empty exam room, directing him to sit on the exam bed. It only takes a second before Dr. Cho bustles in.

“Hey Peter,” she says with a smile as she rubs hand sanitizer into her hands and grabs a set of gloves from the box on the wall. “Tony said you were sick. Want to tell me about what’s going on?

“Nausea mostly,” he says as she runs a thermometer across his forehead and frowns at the readout. “My stomach hurts.”

“Well you have a fever of just over one hundred and two,” she says as she clips a pulse ox reader to his finger and wraps a blood pressure cuff around his arm and lets it run. “And your blood pressure is a little low,” she narrows her eyes at the reading and unhooks the machines. “Lay back for me?”

Peter does and stares at the ceiling as she starts to palpate his abdomen. He could probably fall asleep here actually if he – “OW!” He exclaims, curling away from Dr. Cho’s hands and wrapping his arms around his stomach to protect it.

“Well I have a tentative diagnosis,” she says snapping off her gloves. “We’ll do an ultrasound to confirm but, congratulations, Peter you have appendicitis.”

Peter and Tony both blink and then look at each other and then back. “For three days?” Tony questions, scooting Peter over to sit next to him on the bed and run a hand soothingly up and down Peter’s back. It doesn’t stop the stabbing pain in his abdomen but it helps.

“His healing factor is probably slowing down the progression, preventing it from rupturing as quickly as it could or should have,” she says, typing something into Peter’s chart on her StarkPad. “I’ll have a tech confirm with ultrasound and get a surgeon out to do the surgery. It’s pretty quick – one hour tops and then a few days recovery and you’ll be good as new.”

“Surgery?” Peter asks hoarsely, feeling his heart rate speed up. He’s never had surgery before.

Dr. Cho looks up at him and her face softens a little. “It’s an easy procedure,” she promises. “You won’t even realize that you’ve had it really and. Once you wake up, you’ll feel immediately better. Everything will be fine,” she promises and Peter nods with a gulp. He can feel stomach acid rising in his throat again and lunges for the emesis basin sitting on the bedside table, gagging into it.

“Let it all out Webs,” Tony says, rubbing his back sympathetically. “Got anything to help with this doc?”

“I’ll have the nurses start and IV and give him an anti-emetic,” she said, passing a new basin to Tony and taking the one from Peter’s slack grasp. “Just try to relax okay Peter?”

“This sucks,” he grumbles, letting his head fall over to rest on his mentor’s shoulder and relaxing when he feels Tony’s finger scrub though his hair to massage his aching head.

“Sure does kiddo,” Tony agrees, pulling the blanket up to Peter’s chest. “But at least its an easy fix.”

“I don’t want surgery,” Peter tells him quietly. Even with all of his many Spider-Man injuries he’s never had to be put under for anything. “Is May on her way?”

“Happy went to get her,” Tony promises him. “And surgery seems really scary but its not I promise. It’s like taking a really good nap and May and I will both be there alright? It’ll be fine Underoos.”

“Okay,” Peter says quietly, feeling slightly better but still a little concerned. But he would have May and Tony with him. It would be fine.

————————————————

“Guess we still need to tweak the anesthetic formula for you just a bit,” Mr. Stark says apologetically as he mops up the sweat on Peter’s brow with a damp cloth and supports him as he retches again. The surgery had gone well and had been quick. Waking up however?

Not so much.

“Just let it out baby,” May croons as she rubs his back, sweaty and making the thin hospital gown stick to his skin uncomfortably. Peter just gasps a little and squeezes his eyes closed, trying to take deep breaths through his nose to quell his nausea.

“I’m good,” Peter croaks a minute later, letting his aunt settle him back into the bed and fuss over him. He had barely woken up after the surgery before the vomiting started again. It had alarmed Tony but May and Dr. Cho had both determined that it was just a poor reaction to the anesthesia they used. With how fast him metabolism was, it should move through his system quickly.

“Can I get you anything sweetie?” May asked him, brushing his damp hair out of his face and sitting on the edge of the bed facing him.

“I’m okay,” Peter said, his eyes drooping from exhaustion. Tony squeezed his hand and tucked his blanket in a little tighter around him warming Peter up from the inside a little. He was so glad and thankful that he had the chance to get closer with Tony over the last couple months since the incident with the Vulture. The man was still a little awkward and learning how to be a mentor but he was trying and that’s all Peter could ask for. “Just want to sleep,” he said softly, letting his eyes slip closed.

“Okay baby,” he heard May whisper, running her fingers through his hair and Peter felt the ghost of a smile on his face. Yeah, he could probably handle this recovery.

#summerofwhump #summerofwhump23 #Prompt: Sick #irondad #spider man #Summer of Whump 2021

12 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 5 years

Text

i’ve noticed that my shorthand critique of the “south park caused anti-semitism” theory of media has been getting some attention, and it’s funny cause it dovetails with another round of “the youtube algorithm is responsible for turning everybody into nazis” rhetoric as well, sparked by a recent new york times article. this sort of navelgazing is pretty popular because it works nicely with beliefs that both elites and liberals in general have, namely, that public opinion needs to be managed by an enlightened few, that some people are too stupid to participate in civic life and that’s why right wing populists get elected, and that if people are educated correctly, they will simply accept that liberalism is the best model for society. in short, it’s behaviorism, namely, the hypodermic needle model of media.

the liberal elite in interwar america believed themselves to be creating a better society through management of public opinion. figures like walter lippman were committed to benevolent elite rule through the manipulation of opinion, the “manufacturing of consent”. many of them came out of the milieu of manipulating popular opinion through propaganda work in the first world war, successfully convincing americans to join and support the british side in that war. edward bernays, for instance, worked for the committee on public information, the “largest propaganda machine the world had ever seen“, before becoming the intellectual forebear of the public relations industry in america. he and other similar figures, like lippman, carl byoir, and charles merriam (who combined behaviouralism with political science), were the leading lights of the “Progressive” movement of the time. they relied on the notion that media was passively consumed by people, who simply accepted the claims made without hesitation and then acted accordingly. the psychological theories behind this found form as a body of work known as behavioralism. human beings had a set of limited or “latent” responses to stimuli. by providing the correct stimuli, human beings could be made to behave accordingly. one day, society would be governed by the truly intelligent who would suss out the correct stimuli through trial and error and then apply them to the masses, a society of pavlov’s dogs. this top-down model not coincidentally empowered liberal elites to do what they will without any input from the masses.

this was termed the “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” model of media. both of these are medical terms, the latter referring to a drug that treats only the disease without any side effects, and that’s quite telling. american progressives have traditionally exalted medicine as a neutral, rational way to develop a better society. many were advocates of eugenics as a form of medicine, “cleaning” the human race of its “unfit” members. recently, there’s been a strong resurgence of interest in eugenics, behavioralism, and the use of medical terminology to describe media (viral video, using the metaphor of contagion).

proponents of the model in the 1930s referred to the success of the nazis in their use of mass media (ironically, using the same propaganda techniques they’d developed. joseph goebbels was known to be a reader of bernays’ books) as well as the payne fund studies, a series of works done on the responses of children to movies with poor methodology and funded by oil magnates hoping to drive moral panics (the hays code was strongly influenced by them), and the panicked reaction to the 1938 orson welles radio production of war of the worlds in support. of course, all three of these shared very specific material conditions of the people involved that drove them to react in the manner they did apart from the media involved in persuasion. for the decade after the first world war, while germany muddled along without growth but also without significant collapse, the nazis failed to attract more than a few percentage points of electoral support, despite consistently using similar tactics. it was only after the economic collapse of germany, when the economy had shrunk by about a quarter, that the nazis gained traction. even then, this was by using the failures of a liberal constitution to turn their electoral base, only one third of voters who were largely based in rural areas and included almost nobody in the major cities, into a workable governing coalition, particularly by playing on the fact that german liberals feared communism much more than nazism. likewise, the panic over war of the worlds was largely a myth created by newspapers which feared they were losing their audience to a new, more dynamic form of media and wanted to stoke a moral panic (see a parallel with the nyt story?). those who were convinced that an invasion was occurring, according to a study done afterwards (in part by theodor adorno), for the most part had only heard a bit and were concerned about a german invasion, given the heightened geopolitical tensions at the time, or were from the town of concrete, washington, which suffered a blackout midway through the performance.

you can see the same sort of threads in the nyt story, while the important parts go ignored by twitterati eager to engage on the most superficial level. “young men discover far-right videos by accident“ thanks to “YouTube and its recommendation algorithm“, “the most frequent cause of members’ “red-pilling”“ according to a study done by the NED(ie western intelligence)-funded bellingcat, after which they fall “ down the alt-right rabbit hole” as passive subjects reacting to stimuli. clearly, these videos spread like a contagion, and it’s our job to ban them in favour of much more legitimate content that supports major western foreign policy objectives. oh wait, hold up, mr cain was a “college dropout struggling to find his place in the world“, at a time of wage stagnation and a tough job market for newer entries that’s especially pronounced as you go further down the education ladder? he “grew up in postindustrial Appalachia”, an area destroyed by rapacious neoliberalism that has increasingly seen its industries move offshore in search of lower wages, its most dynamic members leave for major cities due to a lack of jobs, and those that remain become increasingly socially isolated, prompting them to either resort to social media or kill themselves through drugs and guns in what famed economist angus deaton calls “deaths of despair” (not to mention the limiting of public spaces to those who can pay, another aspect of neoliberalism, which particularly drives teens like mr cain into "online games with his friends”)? in a world where capitalism justifies itself by telling those it fails over and over that it’s their own fault, that they need to improve themselves and that there is no such thing as structural problems because, in the words of margaret thatcher, “there is no such thing [as society]! only individual men and women”, mr cain was drawn to propaganda masquerading as a self-help grift with an emphasis on supposedly knowing more than the brainwashed masses (”To Mr. Cain, all of this felt like forbidden knowledge“)?

most of all though is the fact that most of the people cain watched are either funded directly or take most of their talking points from a network of right wing intellectuals cultivated by major dark money backers for decades. david rubin takes money from dennis prager, who in turn is funded by fracking billionaires and evangelical christians the wilks brothers, and the bradley foundation, who have funded literally every major right wing cause of note. lauren southern is only famous because she worked for rebel media, funded by much of the oil industry including the kochs as well as the bradley foundation. paul joseph watson is associated with ukip and its funder arron banks. gad saad is funded by molson coors, whose corporate heads not only once praised hitler but founded the most famous republican think tank in the country, the heritage foundation. two of the major members of the “intellectual dark web”, charles murray and christina hoff sommers, work directly for the heritage foundation. and other youtube luminaries of note, like alex jones, thunderf00t, and stefan molyneux, make their money solely by doing interviews with these people and by citing material produced from these think tanks. in a world where inequality is increasingly dividing the rich and the working class, the former spend more and more on maintaining the division, while the latter are driven into a state of fear in which absurd theories about the collapse of western civilization and their replacement with latin american and muslim people seems much more reasonable. There’s also the social isolation that makes youtube celebs and discord chat buddies seem less like distant weirdos and more like the only friends one has.

the solution, of course, is to modify youtube’s algorithm. just a bit of top-down tweaking to educate the masses on their correct course. surely, nobody would be stupid enough to think that the material conditions created by the neoliberal elite in the past few decades has driven a complete collapse in trust in american society, to the point where only a third of americans "trust their government “to do what is right”“, compared to over 80% of chinese people. surely this breakdown in trust is due to youtube and not the complete economic decimation of the country by its elites, to the point where many rural counties have not even recovered the jobs they lost a decade ago. a redistribution of wealth should not even be on the table, because material conditions play no part in how people react to media. just accept your daily helping of bullshit from the bourgeoisie and never question them when they say certain people need to be censored, because the powers you let them have will never be abused or turned against you in any way. and hey, don’t listen to any critiques of behaviorism, because it’s not like anarchists blew that shit out of the water in the 1950s.

#this is like the fifth time i've seen a mass media article about an alt-right converso who cites contrapoints as key to his damascus moment #i think the only time i saw one of her videos i was annoyed with how she failed to critique some of the deeper issues with what she discusse #something about that golden boy swedish guy i think #other than that all i know about her is the heavy critiques that a lot of trans people have levelled against her #it feels like she's being promoted by the media as an acceptable left winger in the gatekeeper model #but i really don't know enough about her to say whether that's true or not #if anybody's got any thoughts or whatever #cause there's no way i'm sitting through a bunch of fucking youtube video essays #i should stop writing these while drunk in the middle of the night over the course of 2 hours #i can't even tell whether i brought all the themes together in the ending paragraph because i don't remember what i was thinking in the intr

952 notes · View notes

rainhalydia · 5 years

Note

I wasn't in fandom at the time, so I'm curious about how you felt, as a Throbb shipper, about GRRM confirming Robb didn't love Theon as much as he loved Jon? And how did Throbb shippers in general feel about it?

Well, I can’t say how Throbb shippers in general felt. Not that happy, I’d guess? I can tell how I felt and still feel about it, though I didn’t see that interview until long after the fact so I didn’t catch any drama anyway. To sum it up: I don’t care.

A much longer, rambling word-vomit under the cut:

I think I summed up my feelings very exactly, but I kept thinking a lot about this ask and having lots of opinions, so here we go. I’ll preface this long-ass rant by saying I have no professional training in literary analysis. I just read a lot, overthink everything and had two classes in college about literature.

First of all, this tendency to give great weight - i.e., to care at all - about what writers have to say about their own work is completely foreign to me. I mean it literally - the main framework of literary analysis I’ve encountered throughtout my education was basically centered around the text, and I very much adopt it without even giving it conscious thought. I don’t seek out interviews, addendums, essays, anything at all. Sometimes I read it if they fall on my lap. Such was the case with this interview.

It’s not that writers don’t have things to say, or that those things are not interesting or valuable or sometimes shed a new light on their work. It’s that at the end of the day they’re not important! Only canon is canon. I don’t mean to sound snob or pedantic, like the books are law or something. And any canon has a number of valid interpretations (within limits), they’re not absolute, they allow some wiggle room. But any text needs by definition to stand on its own without writers poking their heads inside the room to say how we should interpret it. If we need imput from the writers to do it, then the text is already bad, it failed, sorry. Interpretation is the reader’s job. In fact, it’s the reader’s prerrogative.

Much of this hipe around authors, I believe, has to do with the rise of social media and how close to the public writers suddenly were. And I feel that applies especially for authors like Martin, who are very talented and have created a very rich world that has become really popular. And ASOIAF is still ongoing. It’s natural that everyone wants to pick at his brain and know where the story is going!

And here I make my second very unpopular point: authors are not specialists in their own work.

He knows more than anyone about it, certainly, and currently Martin is probably the only person who knows how things will end (though we have plenty of bare bones the show left), but he is, as he has admited himself, a gardener. The story was bound to get away from him, given his own writting style. The group of people who will be specialists on his work don’t include him, and they don’t even exist yet. They will only emerge when he’s stopped writing (so probably after his death) and his work has ended (if it was finished or not). Then people can read every single thing he has ever written, which is much more than ASOIAF, and analyse it to death, pick it apart from every single angle, the ones Martin intended to be there and the ones he didn’t.

Again, I don’t mean to come across as snobbish and say Martin does not know his own work, characters, creation, etc. He does! But no writer can leave all their biases behind when they start writing, so these books are not neutral to begin with. Add to it the lots and lots of variables readers will bring when they interpret the text, and any book is always going to be more than the author intends by default.

If my argument seems absurd, let me point out that it has already happened to a certain degree: my own interpretation from reading ASOIAF is that it is full of anti-war, anti-violence messages, and yet from it has sprung an adaptation that, in my own interpretation, glorifies war and violence to a ridiculous degree. I’m not alone in these opinions, btw. They’re pretty common in fandom spaces, so I’m sure I didn’t pull them out of thin air. We can argue until we’re blue in the face that the Ds can’t read anything for shit, they certainly don’t do themselves any favors, but you know, they interpreted the books well enough to correctly guess who was Jon’s mother and get permission to adapt it in the first place. I’ve since seen people (I’m not naming names, anyone still reading will just have to take my word for it, but I swear they do exist) defend that the show is a faithful adaptation of the books and that the glorification of war was there too, and others say that the show didn’t actually glorify war, it had an anti-war message! Who is wrong? Well, I don’t know. As I said, the GRRM’s specialists are yet to come, and I’m certainly not one of them. What I believe, however, is that all of us brought our own biases to the same text, interpreted it according to them, and came to different, often conflicting conclusions.

See also what GRRM said about the partnership between Jaehaerys and Alysanne and what most people made of their relationship from Fire and Blood. See the sept sex/rape scene controversy. See the Dany/Drogo controversy.

Do you get why I put little weight in Martin’s interviews to form my opinion? So given that and my own background, I’ll chose my own interpretation of the text rather than Martin’s apocrypha.

What does the book canon, and the book canon alone, say about Robb’s feelings for Theon? Well, unless new material is released, we’ll just never know for sure, because Robb isn’t a pov character. We do have Theon’s side of things - he has a certain affection for Robb, he’s more of a brother than his own brothers, he wishes he had died with him or at least that he had been there at the moment of Robb’s death, depending on how sincere he feels like being. We also know a little bit of what other characters thought of their relationship. Bran says Robb admired Theon and enjoyed his company, and it’s implied that he finds this baffling. He’s also jealous that Robb spends more time with Theon and other adults doing adult things than with his brothers. And though I’ve talked at lenght about interpretation and wiggle room to understand things, it’s also pretty evident that Robb is down to hear Theon talk about his sexual conquests in some detail as long as his brothers aren’t around.

Of course, Bran is a child and much as he loves Robb, their time together is cut short and Robb is not his main concern anyway. We get most material about Robb and Theon’s relationship from Cat’s pov. There’s a lot we can analyse and Damien had already done a great not-meta about it, but sadly he’s since deleted, thank you to the demons who got on his case, but for me the most damning piece of evidence that Robb feels very strongly for Theon is this:

“Robb will avenge his brothers. Ice can kill as dead as fire. Ice was Ned’s greatsword. Valyrian steel, marked with the ripples of a thousand foldings, so sharp I feared to touch it. Robb’s blade is dull as a cudgel compared to Ice. It will not be easy for him to get Theon’s head off, I fear. The Starks do not use headsmen. Ned always said that the man who passes the sentence should swing the blade, though he never took any joy in the duty.”

So to unpack what is going on: nearly drowing in grief, Cat rambles to Brienne about lots of things, including Theon’s impending death sentence. By Northern dumb tradition, Robb must be the one to behead Theon, his former best friend turned enemy, turned betrayer, turned brother-killer. And she says that it won’t be easy for him to do it.

Now, it can be argued that this is partly because of the sword. They’ve lost their sharp valyrian steel and Robb uses an inferior blade, not as sharp. I reject this interpretation as the only explanation (and here comes my own biases) because she mentions the headsman right after. A headsman might be more experienced, but it’s not like he’d have valyrian steel to do it either. Rather, I think she’s talking about how being able to pass Theon off to be killed by a headsman would be easier on Robb psychologically, but it’s not really an option, so Robb will have to suffer.

At this point, to Robb’s knowledge, Theon has: 1) betrayed his trust and used the ruse of negociations with Balon to escape; 2) attacked the northern shore and enslaved his people; 3) attacked and took control of his home; 4) made his brothers hostages; 5) killed his brothers; 6) denied his brothers the right to be buried in a decent way; and finally, 7) burned their bodies and exposed them for all of the North to see.

And after all this, having to be the one to kill Theon will make him suffer.

We know one of the moments Robb gets the angriest in the books is when Bran is threatened by the wildlings. He is the acting Lord and keeping his little brothers safe is his responsability. He nearly bites Theon’s head off when Theon saves Bran in a risky way and we know that was uncharacteristic because Theon is still sulking about that a whole year later. So his siblings are dear to him, but even after Theon does everything from steps 1 to 4, he’s still sure they’re not in danger and that Theon won’t do anything to them. That’s how much he trusts Theon. It takes literal murder to make him change his mind.

But then he does change his mind. He believes Theon did those awful, awful things to his brothers. After that knowledge has had time to settle in, after he believes the worst of Theon, he has this amazing convo with Cat that I’ll quote whole because it’s amazing:

“Enough.” For just an instant Robb sounded more like Brandon than his father. “No man calls my lady of Winterfell a traitor in my hearing, Lord Rickard.” When he turned to Catelyn, his voice softened. “If I could wish the Kingslayer back in chains I would. You freed him without my knowledge or consent … but what you did, I know you did for love. For Arya and Sansa, and out of grief for Bran and Rickon. Love’s not always wise, I’ve learned. It can lead us to great folly, but we follow our hearts … wherever they take us. Don’t we, Mother?”

Is that what I did? “If my heart led me into folly, I would gladly make whatever amends I can to Lord Karstark and yourself.”

Lord Rickard’s face was implacable. “Will your amends warm Torrhen and Eddard in the cold graves where the Kingslayer laid them?” He shouldered between the Greatjon and Maege Mormont and left the hall.

Robb made no move to detain him. “Forgive him, Mother.”

“If you will forgive me.”

“I have. I know what it is to love so greatly you can think of nothing else.”

Catelyn bowed her head. “Thank you.” I have not lost this child, at least.

So we know that what is going on here is that Robb is buttering Cat up before breaking the news of his marriage to Jeyne to her. One of the possible interpretations supported by the text is that Jeyne is in love with Robb and Robb is not in love with her. It’s a common reading that he married her out of honor and to avoid a possible Jon Snow situation. During their marriage, he seems to grow fond of her - Cat notices he likes her company better, and her brother’s, and that he laughs when he is with the Westerlings - but he also keeps some distance. She’s afraid of Grey Wind, which pretty much means being afraid of a part of him. In turn, he’s attentive, courteous, and a bit touched and annoyed at her public displays of affection.

Then there is this gem:

“His heir failed him.” Robb ran a hand over the rough weathered stone. “I had hoped to leave Jeyne with child … we tried often enough, but I’m not certain…”

And this is more Damien’s not-meta than my own, but once you see it, you can’t ever unsee it. Compare the bolded parts in that quote in the first Cat-Robb convo to the part bolded in the second one, put them side to side and tell me you can’t see the difference. In the first one, Robb basically spells it out that he’s made a mistake out of love, that love turned him into a fool, but it was stronger than him. At that point of the narrative, Robb’s biggest mistake (and notably it was HIS mistale, it was not a case of the narrative screwing him over) was to free Theon. A mistake that caused him to lose his brothers, castle and a significant chunk of political standing. The consequences of marrying Jeyne, which is pretty much only to lose the Freys, don’t even compare - especially because the Stark faction believes they can win their support back.

And this love that made him act like a fool is further described in the second bolded part of that quote. He loved so greatly that he could think of nothing else. That is some passion there, folks. Even considering that he’s trying to get Cat on his side, it strikes me as so sincere and heartfelt. And again, maybe it’s my own biases showing, but that sounds like an all-consuming love, the kind of love that doesn’t go away easily. I don’t see that same depth of emotion on the second bolded quote… they tried often enough. Does it add up with the first part? I don’t think so.

My conclusion, and forgive me if the shipper gogles come in, is that the love that hurt him, that consumed him, is the love he had for Theon. Not for his wife. But it was in the past, one might say. His marriage was just beginning, he and Jeyne grow closer, etc. I’ll quote two more bits:

“I cannot speak to that. There is much confusion in any war. Many false reports. All I can tell you is that my nephews claim it was this bastard son of Bolton’s who saved the women of Winterfell, and the little ones. They are safe at the Dreadfort now, all those who remain.”

“Theon,” Robb said suddenly. “What happened to Theon Greyjoy? Was he slain?”

Here we are nearing the Red Wedding. Some Freys come to pretend to make peace and pressure for a wedding to Edmure and they bring news of the battle of Winterfell. Professional writers don’t often abuse the “suddenly” like us poor fic writers, so when he says it was sudden, i believe it was sudden. I believe it came out of nowhere, in fact, and that Robb was the only one in that room considering Theon’s fate.

Roose Bolton removed a ragged strip of leather from the pouch at his belt. “My son sent this with his letter.”

Ser Wendel turned his fat face away. Robin Flint and Smalljon Umber exchanged a look, and the Greatjon snorted like a bull. “Is that … skin?” said Robb.

“The skin from the little finger of Theon Greyjoy’s left hand. My son is cruel, I confess it. And yet … what is a little skin, against the lives of two young princes? You were their mother, my lady. May I offer you this … small token of revenge?“

Part of Catelyn wanted to clutch the grisly trophy to her heart, but she made herself resist. “Put it away. Please.”

“Flaying Theon will not bring my brothers back,” Robb said. “I want his head, not his skin.”

Aside from Catelyn, who is torn, and maybe the Greatjon (I don’t know what snorting like a bull is supposed to convey), no one in that room approves of torturing Theon, they’re all rightly creeped out. But no one would blink an eye if Robb had ordered Theon flayed alive. Instead, he commands the torture to stop. Of course it’s the only decent thing to do, but let’s all appreciate how the character who is always arguing for peace, end of conflict and letting things go for the sake of the living and what can still be saved instead of more violence, is tempted by it. Robb is the only one who shares the full extent of Cat’s grief here, but he’s also the only one to try and stop the senseless punishment.

I joke all the time about how Throbb is canon, and it’s mostly jokes. They are not canon in the sense that Cat and Ned are canon, and I don’t think we’ll have any more facts added to their story together, there probably won’t be any flashbacks that hint at a romantic relationship between them. But looking at the text alone, what we have of it as of now, it’s possible to support a canonical reading for this ship. This interpretation is there in the text if you want to see it. In fact, some things make more sense if Robb was in love with Theon.

And you know, having a ship be supported by canon is not actually a condition that needs to be met to ship anything. It’s just something I particularly need to get into it. But even if you read Theon and Robb as just friends, it’s a reach to say that Robb didn’t love Theon.

Of course, we have Robb demonstrating affection towards Jon in the books too. He is Robb’s chosen heir, to Cat’s despair. Despite all the negative propaganda bastards get and the fact that the mother he so respected and loved disliked and distrusted Jon, Robb considers him a full brother, to compare to Sansa’s constant “half-brother” from the beginning of her journey. They’re seen having a good time together (they have a horse race in their very first appearance in the books, and Mance recalls them getting into trouble together as children), so they enjoy each other’s company.

Yet there’s also an undercurrent of sibling rivalry between them, seen from Jon’s pov. We have this bit with Benjen:

Benjen gave Jon a careful, measuring look. “You don’t miss much, do you, Jon? We could use a man like you on the Wall.”

Jon swelled with pride. “Robb is a stronger lance than I am, but I’m the better sword, and Hullen says I sit a horse as well as anyone in the castle.”

This is hilarious to me. My uncle paid me a compliment for being perceptive, a skill not at all related to martial skills! Time to compare my martial skills to my brother’s, even though we’re both 14 and there’s lots of more tried warriors in the world and we haven’t even had our last growh spurt! This is sure to impress a seasoned ranger!

Of course we know Jon’s rivalry towards Robb comes from his bastard status, but it’s interesting to me that it’s something that centers around Robb alone; he doesn’t compare himself to Bran or Rickon as far as I remember. That can be explained by their very similar ages and growing up together, I think. Jon has the advantage of being older than his other true born brothers.

Jon also says this:

Bastard children were born from lust and lies, men said; their nature was wanton and treacherous. Once Jon had meant to prove them wrong, to show his lord father that he could be as good and true a son as Robb. I made a botch of that. Robb had become a hero king; if Jon was remembered at all, it would be as a turncloak, an oathbreaker, and a murderer. He was glad that Lord Eddard was not alive to see his shame.

To Jon - and to the other Stark children - Robb is often the model to be emmulated. I won’t dig up all the times they hold him up as the ideal of bravery. Jon’s feelings are not unique in this sense, though they are when it comes to the rivalry. They all admire Robb. From Robb’s side, I don’t remember hints of him admiring Jon or any of his siblings. He certainly loves them, likes them, and enjoys spending time with Jon at the very least.

But Theon is the one Robb admires in text. Bran says it, and Theon too:

“There is nothing small about the letter I bear,” Theon said, “and the offer he makes is one I suggested to him.”

“This wolf king heeds your counsel, does he?” The notion seemed to amuse Lord Balon.

“He heeds me, yes. I’ve hunted with him, trained with him, shared meat and mead with him, warred at his side. I have earned his trust. He looks on me as an older brother, he—”

Readers often dismiss this as Theon’s garden variety empty bragging. To be fair, Theon very much distorts reality in his head to fit his own idea of how things should be, but this is one of the few times when he’s not doing that. He’s genuinely proud that Robb thinks so well of him. And since he’s so sensitive about what people think of him and people not giving him the credit he thinks he deserves, I’m ready to believe his account of facts this one time.

What I get from canon, regarding who Robb loves the most out of Jon and Theon, is that he loves them differently. He might even love Jon more by ASOS; it’s a wonder that we have hints that he still cares about Theon at all by the end, after the murders of who we know are the miller boys, but who Robb thinks are Bran and Rickon.

He had different relationships with them. Even if you reject the reading of Throbb as romantic, friends and siblings are not interchangable, even if you’re out there calling close friends brothers or if your brother is your best friend. It’s different sorts of affection. At the beginning of the series, Robb and Theon seemed closer to me than Robb and Jon - let’s not forget that Jon’s favorite is Arya, and the biggest family drama at that time has to do with Jon and Cat. They grow even closer as they go to war together, and then they’re pushed apart by circumstances and by Theon’s actions.

But okay, this is not long enough yet, so let’s say that this is an invalid framework of analysis and Martin’s word of god has as much weight as canon, and that in fact, we’re 100% certain that Robb loved Jon more than Theon.

Why does it even need to be a competition? No one holds it against Ygritte that Jon loves Arya more. Asha has a steady boyfriend that she’d gladly marry, and still she takes risk after risk for Theon. Ned was probably the greatest love of Cat’s life, but her interactions with her brother and uncle are still emotional and moving in great part because of the depth of her love for them.

Robb loving Jon more doesn’t take anything away from Theon. He doesn’t love Theon less because he loves Jon more, love is not a finite resource. And Robb loved Theon plenty, be it in a familial, friends or romantic way. If it diminished, that was a result of Theon’s choices alone.

#Anonymous #throbb #long post #and i mean long

39 notes · View notes

timeless-hollywood-classics · 4 years

Text

Mae West (born Mary Jane West; August 17, 1893 – November 22, 1980) was an American actress, singer, playwright, screenwriter, comedian and sex symbol whose entertainment career spanned seven decades. She was known for her lighthearted, bawdy double entendres and breezy sexual independence, and often used a husky contralto voice. She was active in vaudeville and on stage in New York City before moving to Los Angeles to pursue a career in the film industry.

West was one of the most controversial movie stars of her day; she encountered many problems, especially censorship. She once quipped, "I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it." She bucked the system by making comedy out of conventional mores, and the Depression-era audience admired her for it. When her film career ended, she wrote books and plays, and continued to perform in Las Vegas and the United Kingdom, on radio and television, and recorded rock 'n roll albums. In 1999, the American Film Institute posthumously voted West the 15th greatest female screen legend of classic American cinema.

Mary Jane West was born on August 17, 1893, in Brooklyn (either Greenpoint or Bushwick, before New York City was consolidated in 1898). She was delivered at home by an aunt who was a midwife. She was the eldest surviving child of John Patrick West and Mathilde "Tillie" (later Matilda) Delker (originally Doelger; later Americanized to "Delker" or "Dilker"). Tillie and her five siblings emigrated with their parents, Jakob (1835–1902) and Christiana (1838–1901; née Brüning) Doelger from Bavaria in 1886. West's parents married on January 18, 1889, in Brooklyn, to the pleasure of the groom's parents and the displeasure of the bride's parents and raised their children as Protestants, although John West was of mixed Catholic–Protestant descent.

West's father was a prizefighter known as "Battlin' Jack West" who later worked as a "special policeman" and later had his own private investigations agency. Her mother was a former corset and fashion model. Her paternal grandmother, Mary Jane (née Copley), for whom she was named, was of Irish Catholic descent and West's paternal grandfather, John Edwin West, was of English–Scots descent and a ship's rigger.

Her eldest sibling, Katie, died in infancy. Her other siblings were Mildred Katherine West, later known as Beverly (December 8, 1898 – March 12, 1982), and John Edwin West II (sometimes inaccurately called "John Edwin West, Jr."; February 11, 1900 – October 12, 1964). During her childhood, West's family moved to various parts of Woodhaven, as well as the Williamsburg and Greenpoint neighborhoods of Brooklyn. In Woodhaven, at Neir's Social Hall (which opened in 1829 and is still extant), West supposedly first performed professionally.

West was five when she first entertained a crowd at a church social, and she started appearing in amateur shows at the age of seven. She often won prizes at local talent contests. She began performing professionally in vaudeville in the Hal Clarendon Stock Company in 1907 at the age of 14. West first performed under the stage name "Baby Mae", and tried various personas, including a male impersonator.

She used the alias "Jane Mast" early in her career. Her trademark walk was said to have been inspired or influenced by female impersonators Bert Savoy and Julian Eltinge, who were famous during the Pansy Craze. Her first appearance in a Broadway show was in a 1911 revue A La Broadway put on by her former dancing teacher, Ned Wayburn. The show folded after eight performances, but at age 18, West was singled out and discovered by The New York Times. The Times reviewer wrote that a "girl named Mae West, hitherto unknown, pleased by her grotesquerie and snappy way of singing and dancing". West next appeared in a show called Vera Violetta, whose cast featured Al Jolson. In 1912, she appeared in the opening performance of A Winsome Widow as a "baby vamp" named La Petite Daffy.

She was encouraged as a performer by her mother, who, according to West, always thought that anything Mae did was fantastic. Other family members were less encouraging, including an aunt and her paternal grandmother. They are all reported as having disapproved of her career and her choices. In 1918, after exiting several high-profile revues, West finally got her break in the Shubert Brothers revue Sometime, opposite Ed Wynn. Her character Mayme danced the shimmy and her photograph appeared on an edition of the sheet music for the popular number "Ev'rybody Shimmies Now".

Eventually, she began writing her own risqué plays using the pen name Jane Mast. Her first starring role on Broadway was in a 1926 play she entitled Sex, which she wrote, produced, and directed. Although conservative critics panned the show, ticket sales were strong. The production did not go over well with city officials, who had received complaints from some religious groups, and the theater was raided, with West arrested along with the cast. She was taken to the Jefferson Market Court House, (now Jefferson Market Library), where she was prosecuted on morals charges, and on April 19, 1927, was sentenced to 10 days for "corrupting the morals of youth". Though West could have paid a fine and been let off, she chose the jail sentence for the publicity it would garner. While incarcerated on Welfare Island (now known as Roosevelt Island), she dined with the warden and his wife; she told reporters that she had worn her silk panties while serving time, in lieu of the "burlap" the other girls had to wear. West got great mileage from this jail stint. She served eight days with two days off for "good behavior". Media attention surrounding the incident enhanced her career, by crowning her the darling "bad girl" who "had climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong".

Her next play, The Drag, dealt with homosexuality, and was what West called one of her "comedy-dramas of life". After a series of try-outs in Connecticut and New Jersey, West announced she would open the play in New York. However, The Drag never opened on Broadway due to efforts by the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice to ban any attempt by West to stage it. West explained, "The city fathers begged me not to bring the show to New York because they were not equipped to handle the commotion it would cause." West was an early supporter of the women's liberation movement, but said she was not a "burn your bra" type feminist. Since the 1920s, she was also an early supporter of gay rights, and publicly declared against police brutality that gay men experienced. She adopted a then "modern" psychological explanation that gay men were women's souls in men's bodies, and hitting a gay man was akin to hitting a woman. In her 1959 autobiography, Goodness Had Nothing to Do With It, West strongly objected to hypocrisy while, for surprising and unexplained reasons, also disparaging homosexuality: "In many ways homosexuality is a danger to the entire social system of Western civilization. Certainly a nation should be made aware of its presence — without moral mottoes — and its effects on children recruited to it in their innocence. I had no objection to it as a cult of jaded inverts... involved only with themselves. It was its secret, anti-social aspects I wanted to bring into the sun. As a private pressure group it could, and has, infected whole nations." This perspective, never elaborated upon by Mae West in other books or interviews seems inconsistent with the Mae West persona. In her 1975 book Sex, Health, and ESP, Mae West writes on page 43, "I believe that the world owes male and female homosexuals more understanding than we've given them. Live and let live is my philosophy on the subject, and I believe everybody has the right to do his or her own thing or somebody else's -- as long as they do it all in private!"

West continued to write plays, including The Wicked Age, Pleasure Man and The Constant Sinner. Her productions aroused controversy, which ensured that she stayed in the news, which also often resulted in packed houses at her performances. Her 1928 play, Diamond Lil, about a racy, easygoing, and ultimately very smart lady of the 1890s, became a Broadway hit and cemented West's image in the public's eye. This show had an enduring popularity and West successfully revived it many times throughout the course of her career. With Diamond Lil being a hit show, Hollywood naturally came courting.

In 1932, West was offered a contract by Paramount Pictures despite being close to 40. This was an unusually late age to begin a film career, especially for women, but she was not playing an ingénue. She nonetheless managed to keep her age ambiguous for some time. She made her film debut in Night After Night (1932) starring George Raft, who suggested West for the role. At first she did not like her small role in Night After Night, but was appeased when she was allowed to rewrite her scenes.[45] In West's first scene, a hat-check girl exclaims, "Goodness, what beautiful diamonds", and West replies, "Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie." Reflecting on the overall result of her rewritten scenes, Raft is said to have remarked, "She stole everything but the cameras."

She brought her Diamond Lil character, now renamed "Lady Lou", to the screen in She Done Him Wrong (1933). The film was one of Cary Grant's first major roles, which boosted his career. West claimed she spotted Grant at the studio and insisted that he be cast as the male lead. She claimed to have told a Paramount director, "If he can talk, I'll take him!". The film was a box office hit and earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. The success of the film saved Paramount from bankruptcy, grossing over $2 million, the equivalent of $140 million today. Paramount recognizes that debt of gratitude today, with a building on the lot named after West.

Her next release, I'm No Angel (1933), teamed her with Grant again. I'm No Angel was also a box office hit and was the most successful of her entire film career. In the months that followed the release of this film, reference to West could be found almost anywhere, from the song lyrics of Cole Porter, to a Works Progress Administration (WPA) mural of San Francisco's newly built Coit Tower, to She Done Him Right, a Betty Boop cartoon, to "My Dress Hangs There", a painting by Mexican artist Frida Kahlo. Kahlo's husband, Diego Rivera, paid his own tribute: "West is the most wonderful machine for living I have ever known – unfortunately on the screen only." To F. Scott Fitzgerald, West was especially unique: "The only Hollywood actress with both an ironic edge and a comic spark." As Variety put it, "Mae West's films have made her the biggest conversation-provoker, free-space grabber, and all-around box office bet in the country. She's as hot an issue as Hitler."

By 1933, West was one of the largest box office draws in the United States and, by 1935, West was also the highest paid woman and the second-highest paid person in the United States (after William Randolph Hearst). Hearst invited West to San Simeon, California. "I could'a married him", West explained, "but I got no time for parties. I don't like those big crowds." On July 1, 1934, the censorship of the film Production Code began to be seriously and meticulously enforced, and West's scripts were heavily edited. She would intentionally place extremely risqué lines in her scripts, knowing they would be cut by the censors. She hoped they would then not object as much to her other less suggestive lines. Her next film was Belle of the Nineties (1934). The original title, It Ain't No Sin, was changed due to the censors' objections. Despite Paramount's early objections regarding costs, West insisted the studio to hire Duke Ellington and his orchestra to accompany her in the film's musical numbers. Their collaboration was a success; the classic "My Old Flame" (recorded by Duke Ellington) was introduced in this film. Her next film, Goin' to Town (1935), received mixed reviews, as censorship continued to take its toll in eroding West's best lines.

Her following effort, Klondike Annie (1936) dealt, as best it could given the heavy censorship, with religion and hypocrisy. Some critics called the film her magnum opus, but not everyone felt the same way. Press baron and film mogul William Randolph Hearst, ostensibly offended by an off-handed remark West made about his mistress, Marion Davies, sent a private memo to all his editors stating, "That Mae West picture Klondike Annie is a filthy picture... We should have editorials roasting that picture, Mae West, and Paramount... DO NOT ACCEPT ANY ADVERTISING OF THIS PICTURE." At one point, Hearst asked aloud, "Isn't it time Congress did something about the Mae West menace?" Paramount executives felt they had to tone down the West characterization or face further recrimination. This may be surprising by today's standards, as West's films contained no nudity, no profanity, and very little violence. Though raised in an era when women held second-place roles in society, West portrayed confident women who were not afraid to use their sexual wiles to get what they wanted. "I was the first liberated woman, you know. No guy was going to get the best of me. That's what I wrote all my scripts about."

Around the same time, West played opposite Randolph Scott in Go West, Young Man (1936). In this film, she adapted Lawrence Riley's Broadway hit Personal Appearance into a screenplay. Directed by Henry Hathaway, Go West, Young Man is considered one of West's weaker films of the era, due to the censor's cuts.

West next starred in Every Day's a Holiday (1937) for Paramount before their association came to an end. Again, due to censor cuts, the film performed below its goal. Censorship had made West's sexually suggestive brand of humor impossible for the studios to distribute. West, along with other stellar performers, was put on a list of actors called "Box Office Poison" by Harry Brandt on behalf of the Independent Theatre Owners Association. Others on the list were Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Marlene Dietrich, Fred Astaire, Dolores del Río, Katharine Hepburn and Kay Francis. The attack was published as a paid advertisement in The Hollywood Reporter, and was taken seriously by the fearful studio executives. The association argued that these stars' high salaries and extreme public popularity did not affect their ticket sales, thus hurt the exhibitors. This did not stop producer David O. Selznick, who next offered West the role of the sage madam, Belle Watling, the only woman ever to truly understand Rhett Butler, in Gone with the Wind, after Tallulah Bankhead turned him down. West also turned down the part, claiming that as it was, it was too small for an established star, and that she would need to rewrite her lines to suit her own persona. The role eventually went to Ona Munson.

In 1939, Universal Studios approached West to star in a film opposite W. C. Fields. The studio was eager to duplicate the success of Destry Rides Again starring Marlene Dietrich and James Stewart, with a comic vehicle starring West and Fields. Having left Paramount 18 months earlier and looking for a new film, West accepted the role of Flower Belle Lee in the film My Little Chickadee (1940). Despite the stars' intense mutual dislike, Fields's very real drinking problems and fights over the screenplay, My Little Chickadee was a box office hit, outgrossing Fields's previous film, You Can't Cheat an Honest Man (1939) and the later The Bank Dick (1940). Despite this, religious leaders condemned West as a negative role model, taking offense at lines such as "Between two evils, I like to pick the one I haven't tried before" and "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

West's next film was Columbia's The Heat's On (1943). She initially did not want to do the film, but after actor, director and friend Gregory Ratoff (producer Max Fabian in All About Eve) pleaded with her and claimed he would go bankrupt if she could not help, West relented as a personal favor. Censors by now, though, had curtailed the sexual burlesque of the West characterization. The studio had orders to raise the neck lines and clean up the double entendres. This was the only film for which West was virtually not allowed to write her own dialogue and, as a result, the film suffered.

Perhaps the most critical challenge facing West in her career was censorship of her dialogue. As on Broadway a decade before, by the mid-1930s, her risqué and ribald dialogue could no longer be allowed to pass. The Heat's On opened to poor reviews and weak performance at the box office. West was so distraught after the experience and by her years of struggling with the strict Hays censorship office, that she would not attempt another film role for the next quarter-century. Instead, West pursued a successful and record-breaking career in top nightclubs, Las Vegas, nationally in theater and on Broadway, where she was allowed, even welcomed, to be herself.

After appearing in The Heat's On in 1943, West returned to a very active career on stage and in swank clubs. Among her popular new stage performances was the title role in Catherine Was Great (1944) on Broadway, in which she penned a spoof on the story of Catherine the Great of Russia, surrounding herself with an "imperial guard" of tall, muscular young actors. The play was produced by theater and film impresario Mike Todd (Around The World in 80 Days) and ran for 191 performances and then went on tour.

When Mae West revived her 1928 play Diamond Lil, bringing it back to Broadway in 1949, The New York Times labeled her an "American Institution – as beloved and indestructible as Donald Duck. Like Chinatown, and Grant's Tomb, Mae West should be seen at least once." In the 1950s, West starred in her own Las Vegas stage show at the newly opened Sahara Hotel, singing while surrounded by bodybuilders. The show stood Las Vegas on its head. "Men come to see me, but I also give the women something to see: wall to wall men!" West explained. Jayne Mansfield met and later married one of West's muscle men, a former Mr. Universe, Mickey Hargitay.

When casting about for the role of Norma Desmond for the 1950 film Sunset Boulevard, Billy Wilder offered West the role. Still smarting from the censorship debacle of The Heat's On, and the constraints placed on her characterization, she declined. The theme of the Wilder film, she noted, was pure pathos, while her brand of comedy was always "about uplifting the audience". Mae West had a unique comic character that was timeless, in the same way Charlie Chaplin did. After Mary Pickford also declined the role, Gloria Swanson was cast.

In subsequent years, West was offered the role of Vera Simpson, opposite Marlon Brando, in the 1957 film adaptation of Pal Joey, which she turned down, with the role going to Rita Hayworth. In 1964, West was offered a leading role in Roustabout, starring Elvis Presley. She turned the role down, and Barbara Stanwyck was cast in her place. West was also approached for roles in Frederico Fellini's Juliet of the Spirits and Satyricon, but rejected both offers.

In 1958, West appeared at the live televised Academy Awards and performed the song "Baby, It's Cold Outside" with Rock Hudson, which brought a standing ovation. In 1959, she released an autobiography, Goodness Had Nothing to Do With It, which became a best seller and was reprinted with a new chapter in 1970. West guest-starred on television, including The Dean Martin Show in 1959 and The Red Skelton Show in 1960, to promote her autobiography, and a lengthy interview on Person to Person with Charles Collingwood, which was censored by CBS in 1959, and never aired. CBS executives felt members of the television audience were not ready to see a nude marble statue of West, which rested on her piano. In 1964, she made a guest appearance on the sitcom Mister Ed. Much later, in 1976, she was interviewed by Dick Cavett and sang two songs on his "Back Lot U.S.A." special on CBS.

West's recording career started in the early 1930s with releases of her film songs on shellac 78 rpm records. Most of her film songs were released as 78s, as well as sheet music. In 1955, she recorded her first album, The Fabulous Mae West. In 1965, she recorded two songs, "Am I Too Young" and "He's Good For Me", for a 45 rpm record released by Plaza Records. She recorded several tongue-in-cheek songs, including "Santa, Come Up to See Me", on the album Wild Christmas, which was released in 1966 and reissued as Mae in December in 1980. Demonstrating her willingness to keep in touch with the contemporary scene, in 1966 she recorded Way Out West, the first of her two rock-and-roll albums. The second, released in 1972 on MGM Records and titled Great Balls of Fire, covered songs by The Doors, among others, and had songs written for West by English songwriter-producer Ian Whitcomb.

After a 27-year absence from motion pictures, West appeared as Leticia Van Allen in Gore Vidal's Myra Breckinridge (1970) with Raquel Welch, Rex Reed, Farrah Fawcett, and Tom Selleck in a small part. The movie was intended to be deliberately campy sex change comedy, but had serious production problems, resulting in a botched film that was both a box-office and critical failure. Author Vidal, at great odds with inexperienced and self-styled "art film" director Michael Sarne, later called the film "an awful joke". Though Mae West was given star billing to attract ticket buyers, her scenes were truncated by the inexperienced film editor, and her songs were filmed as though they were merely side acts. Mae West's counterculture appeal (she was dubbed "the queen of camp"), included the young and hip, and by 1971, the student body of University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) voted Mae West "Woman of the Century" in honor of her relevance as a pioneering advocate of sexual frankness and courageous crusader against censorship.

In 1975, West released her book Sex, Health, and ESP (William Allen & Sons, publisher), and Pleasure Man (Dell publishers) based on her 1928 play of the same name. Her autobiography, Goodness Had Nothing to Do with It, was also updated and republished in the 1970s.

Mae West was a shrewd investor, produced her own stage acts, and invested her money in large tracts of land in Van Nuys, a thriving suburb of Los Angeles. With her considerable fortune, she could afford to do as she liked. In 1976, she appeared on Back Lot U.S.A. on CBS, where she was interviewed by Dick Cavett and sang "Frankie and Johnny" along with "After You've Gone." That same year, she began work on her final film, Sextette (1978). Adapted from a 1959 script written by West, the film's daily revisions and production disagreements hampered production from the beginning. Due to the near-endless last-minute script changes and tiring production schedule, West agreed to have her lines signaled to her through a speaker concealed in her hair piece. Despite the daily problems, West was, according to Sextette director Ken Hughes, determined to see the film through. At 84, her now-failing eyesight made navigating around the set difficult, but she made it through the filming, a tribute to her self-confidence, remarkable endurance, and stature as a self-created star 67 years after her Broadway debut in 1911 at the age of 18. Time magazine wrote an article on the indomitable star entitled "At 84, Mae West Is Still Mae West".

Upon its release, Sextette was not a critical or commercial success, but has a diverse cast. The cast included some of West's first co-stars such as George Raft (Night After Night, 1932), silver screen stars such as Walter Pidgeon and Tony Curtis, and more contemporary pop stars such as The Beatles' Ringo Starr and Alice Cooper, and television favorites such as Dom DeLuise and gossip queen Rona Barrett. It also included cameos of some of her musclemen from her 1950s Las Vegas show, such as the still remarkably fit Reg Lewis. Sextette also reunited Mae West with Edith Head, her costume designer from 1933 in She Done Him Wrong.

West was married on April 11, 1911 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Frank Szatkus (1892–1966), whose stage name was Frank Wallace, a fellow vaudevillian whom she met in 1909. She was 17. She kept the marriage a secret, but a filing clerk discovered the marriage certificate in 1935 and alerted the press. The clerk also uncovered an affidavit in which she had declared herself married, made during the Sex trial in 1927.

In August 1913, she met Guido Deiro (1886–1950), an Italian-born vaudeville headliner and star of the piano-accordion. Her affair, and possible 1914 marriage to him, as alleged by Diero's son Guido Roberto Deiro in his 2019 book Mae West and The Count, went "very deep, hittin' on all the emotions". West later said, "Marriage is a great institution. I'm not ready for an institution yet."

In 1916, when she was a vaudeville actress, West had a relationship with James Timony (1884–1954), an attorney nine years her senior. Timony was also her manager. By the time that she was an established movie actress in the mid-1930s, they were no longer a couple. West and Timony remained extremely close, living in the same building, working together, and providing support for each other until Timony's death in 1954.

West remained close to her family throughout her life and was devastated by her mother's death in 1930. In 1930, she moved to Hollywood and into the penthouse at The Ravenswood apartment building where she lived until her death in 1980. Her sister, brother, and father followed her to Hollywood where she provided them with nearby homes, jobs, and sometimes financial support. Among her boyfriends was boxing champion William Jones, nicknamed Gorilla Jones (1906–1982). The management at her Ravenswood apartment building barred the African American boxer from entering the premises; West solved the problem by buying the building and lifting the ban.

She became romantically involved at age 61 with Chester Rybinski (1923–1999), one of the muscle men in her Las Vegas stage show – a wrestler, former Mr. California, and former merchant sailor. He was 30 years younger than she, and later changed his name to Paul Novak. He moved in with her, and their romance continued until her death in 1980 at age 87. Novak once commented, "I believe I was put on this Earth to take care of Mae West." West was a Presbyterian.

In August 1980, West tripped while getting out of bed. After the fall she was unable to speak and was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles, where tests revealed that she had suffered a stroke. She died on November 22, 1980, at the age of 87.

A private service was held at the church in Forest Lawn, Hollywood Hills, on November 25, 1980; (the church is a replica of Boston's Old North Church.) Bishop Andre Penachio, a friend, officiated at the entombment in the family mausoleum at Cypress Hills Abbey, Brooklyn, purchased in 1930 when her mother died. Her father and brother were also entombed there before her, and her younger sister, Beverly, was laid to rest in the last of the five crypts less than 18 months after West's death.

For her contribution to the film industry, Mae West has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1560 Vine Street in Hollywood. For her contributions as a stage actor in the theater world, she has been inducted into the American Theater Hall of Fame. On June 25, 2019, The New York Times Magazine listed Mae West among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire.

#mae west #golden age of hollywood #classic hollywood #classic cinema

3 notes · View notes

tvfanatic97-2 · 5 years

Text

People are making anti-petermj/spideychelle arguments on the basis that it seems "rushed" (we've only seen trailer footage so I don't know what you're basing this on) and that Peter has been through a lot and should recover but pls consider:

1. All of the trailers and clips have shown Peter struggling with the loss of Tony and trying to move on from it so I don't know why y'all are acting like they're completely brushing it aside to push the romance forward. And Peter grieving doesn't mean he shouldn't or can't pursue romance either btw.

2. Within the film it'll have been two years since Homecoming so there'll have been some development in Peter and MJ's friendship from what they were like in Homecoming in that time we didn't get to see on-screen. Yes it sucks that we didn't get to see that development but at the end of the day these are Spider-Man films, they can only spend so much time on the progression of Peter's personal friendships and relationships. Plus I'm certain at the start of Far From Home they'll show us bits of the pre-existing friendship and its development into more so reserve your judgement for when we have more than 3 minutes worth of movie footage.

3. Even it does turn out to be rushed, these characters (not just Peter and MJ, but also Ned, Betty and Flash) all technically died and lost five years of their lives even though they're still the same age, and coming back to an unfamiliar world in the future surrounded by unfamiliar people who are technically five years younger than you kind of forces people closer together because they're all going through a similar experience of trying to navigate this new world they've come back to. And coming back from the dead can motivate you to seize the day and not waste anymore time because you know that you can literally turn to dust one day so Peter may be more willing to take chances and do things like I don't know- buy a girl a necklace and confess that he has feelings for her almost on a whim?

*Edit- to add to my last point, regardless of everything they've been through Peter has already been established as a character that wears his heart on his sleeve so it's no unrealistic that he'd be moving fast w MJ. In Homecoming he literally referred to Liz as his girlfriend all bc she said yes to going to Homecoming with him...which he proceeded to ditch her at anyway. (And they also kissed at Homecoming but that was cut from the film). My point is, it's not out of character for Peter to be rushing to buy MJ a necklace and confess his feelings, especially now that he has the added motivation of knowing life is short after having died and come back to life.

Overall, I think y'all need to relax and just wait for the film because you're embarrassing yourselves with these "essays" for why you don't like petermj/spideychelle.

#rant #spideychelle #peter x michelle #michelle x peter #peter x mj #petermj #spider-man: far from home #ffh

206 notes · View notes

kitten1618x · 5 years

Text

GoT Afterthoughts ep. 08x01 ‘Winterfell’ (Part 1)

Whew! I’m sorry this has taken so long. I’ve got two munchkins home from school with a stomach bug, and they’ve been cutting into my rewatch and write-up.

So, a few things before we kick this bad boy off... I have not read or interacted much with anyone (except writing up that post yesterday about the opening creds) and I have avoided the discord server (even though I’m DYING to gush) as to not skew my own perception of the episode. Those of you who follow my blog know that I am partial to political!jon, but here’s your heads up for anyone else that just stumbled onto this recap. And with that...

We begin the journey of our last season similarly to the way we began our very first: An excited Winter Town boy frantically scrambling to find a better view of the royal retinue marching on Winterfell—complete with the same musical score. Let’s call that strike one against Jon and Dany, as we all know what a farce that first royal couples’ relationship was.

This boy, as he shimmies up a nearby tree, very much reminds me of a combination of both Arya and Bran in the pilot — Arya even spies him and smiles, as she stands watching with the smallfolk (a nice book nod). Her face at initially seeing her big brother Jon makes my heart skip a few beats, and I kind of got the feeling she was going to call out for him, but changed her mind. She looks down then, and I’m honestly so worried for their reunion because they have both changed so much, and Arya isn’t the same little girl he remembers.

Her smile fades as Jon and Dany pass her by, and the Hound comes into view. Her feelings with Sandor have always been complicated, but we don’t have much time to dwell on that, because Gendry rounds the corner and there’s a different kind of smile lighting up Arya’s face now—and I’m so stoked for their reunion, because it’s what I deserve. WE ALL DESERVE THIS OKAY?!?!?!

And what do we have here? Ahhhh yes, the typical D&D ‘cock’ and/or (in this case) ‘balls’ banter via Varys and Tyrion as they once again travel together in another wooden box. You know, we damn well better get the payoff to the jackass/honeycomb/brothel joke this season, or I swear by the old gods and the new that I’m blowing up the Sept of Baelor... oh wait.

Missandei looks visibly uncomfortable at the impassive stares of the Northerners as they ride by. However, Jon did warn them about the North—which he reiterates to a rather annoyed looking Dany, who no doubt expected a much more warmer welcoming for coming to “save the North”—but it’s pretty clear there will be no Myhsa crowd-surfing here.

A screeching overhead sends the Northerners frantically running for cover as a smug-looking Daenerys smirks proudly at the fear her dragon children instill when they split the skies above. Let’s be real here — that was no coincidence. Remember this?

Dany is in complete control of Drogon, and let’s call a spade a spade: this was a cheap intimidation tactic driven by spite. And I honestly can’t even say I blame the girl, but it’s probably not the best way to make new friends, either—especially when they are all of the mindset that “a Targaryen cannot be trusted”. Just sayin’, Dany girl.

And we have Arya’s reaction to seeing Dragons for the first time as they soar high up over Winterfell and Sansa, who watches from the ramparts. Sansa’s reaction is quite similar to Cersei’s—as in, she really doesn’t have one. Someone please cue My Chick Bad by Ludacris!!

Jon and Dany enter the courtyard and Jon springs from his horse to bring Bran in for a signature Stark squeeze and a forehead kiss (another season one callback). He proudly admires how Bran has grown and is now a man, only for Bran to answer with some vague and emotionless three-eyed raven shit, before staring down Daenerys while Jon moves to Sansa’s open arms.

*Perhaps no one informed Jon about Bran going all sentient-being?

I’m sure most of you already noticed that while this is supposed to be the same hug scene we were shown in the HBO teaser, it’s not the same shot, nor the same angle. In the teaser, Jon makes this soft face and goes straight to Sansa’s arms...

But in the actual episode, Jon goes straight to Bran’s arms, and his expression is quite different...

And in the teaser the hug is much longer in duration, and Sansa doesn’t look up at Dany until the end—still not relinquishing her hold on Jon.

However, in the episode, we get a shorter version and a different angle, while Bran and Sansa simultaneously stink-eye Dany the entire time.

*please note Jon’s expression isn’t the same as it is in the hbo teaser—which begs to differ WHY they chose such a romantic shot of these siblings to hype the final season? I mean, I know why... do you? 😉

Annnnnnd moving right along. Jon asks where his darling baby sister Arya has gotten to, as to which Sansa replies “lurking somewhere” — which is an odd response, but I’m not gonna lie, it did make me chuckle a little. If I had to make a guess on this odd dialogue (other than the D’s just suck at dialogue sometimes), I imagine it serves the purpose of leading Jon to assume that the girls still have the same strained relationship of their youth.

Not one to stand by idle while getting eye-fucked from all directions (and not in a good way), Dany sashays over to be introduced to the stunning redhead Jon was hugging on, to learn she is (only) his sister (whew!), and the Lady of Winterfell. And with that said, I need to take a moment to address something to all the antis who will probably hop on this post (cuz I know y’all are there): Jon is NOT the Lord of Winterfell. Winterfell does NOT belong to him, not even as warden of the North, not even a little bit. He has no say, no ownership, no NOTHING on Winterfell. The only way he becomes the Lord of Winterfell is if he marries his cousin, Sansa Stark — which is just ONE of the many reasons WHY a marriage between them is advantageous. Tell your friends.

The tension kicks up a notch as the introductions proceed and Dany feeds Sansa platitudes of how beautiful she and the North are. Perhaps her words are meant to be kind, but after all she’s been through, Sansa is not here for the bullshit — remember how nice Miranda was in the beginning too? Besides, my girl’s jealousy is so thick, she’s almost GREEN. So, giving Dany a full-bodied once over, she haughtily replies “Winterfell is yours, Your Grace.”

Annnnnnd...

Before a full-blown catfight ensues, Bran throws some ice on the situation—and by ice, I mean ice dragon (harr harr harrrr). The wall has come down, and your dragon is one of them now, he informs Dany—whom of course is horrified by the news. (And probably by Bran too, as I assume she, like Jon, did not get the Bran is the 3ER memo).

We move into the Great Hall where we learn that Sansa has already made the intelligent decision to call all their banners to retreat to Winterfell as soon as they knew that the wall had fallen. Little Ned Umber isn’t really sure whom he’s supposed to address or how (bless his little heart), but in any event, he’s getting the horses and carts he needs to safely bring the rest of his people back to Winterfell. Jon tells the maester to summon the Nights Watch as well.

And of course you know little Lady Mormont has some shit to say. She’s not pleased with the turn of events and wastes no time voicing her opinion and stirring the ire of the Northerners. But hey,

(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself).

But more on that later, because Jon looks really nervous as little Lyanna throws shade — and his first instinct is to turn and share a look with his sister, errr wife, cousin!, Sansa.

I feel like he was looking to her for support, but she’s got none to offer at the moment. So, he pulls himself together and tries to calm the dissent by giving another rousing ‘we need allies and I brought them’ speech, and he actually says something VERY interesting here: “I had a choice: keep my crown or protect the north. I chose the north.” I mean, he ain’t lying, and the best place to hide something is right in plain sight, after all—and of course nothing about that statement sounds political or off at all, does it? I mean, because the Dany stans/jonerii insist that Dany agreed and was FULLY onboard to come north before Jon bent the knee, so why would he say that, then? Go on, tell me...

Tyrion decides to throw in his unwanted .02 — simultaneously backing up Jon and feeding Dany’s savior complex (the greatest army blah blah blah — gods, I cannot wait until everyone sees how useless the dragons will be against the NK, especially when using them to roast the wights puts their own soldiers at risk). His words aren’t met with any gratitude when he also drops the bomb that another enemy house of the North is also on its way to Winterfell.

Sansa is taken aback but recovers quickly. Armed with her signature snark, she asks how they’re expected to feed the ‘worlds greatest army’ — something she did not prepare for — chased by a sassy, “what do dragons eat, anyway?”

But wa-wa-wait, HOLD UP. Did Dany just— Did she just throw down the gauntlet?

Why, I believe she did, my friends! jskslkdlsksjsklslsljsllsl 😂😂😂😂

I can’t even with this episode, guys. It’s like I’m watching a medieval version of Melrose Place (google it, youngin’s) with Jane and Sydney throwing shots by the poolside!

Okay, okay, but all joking and snark aside, Sansa has got a valid point. She isn’t prepared to feed all these extra mouths PLUS two fucken huge dragons. I mean, winter is here, and where could they possibly find enough food to sustain everyone? It’s almost as if the show is making it a point to remind us about the lack of food and where did we last see wagons loaded with food? Oh right, I remember...

Put this one behind Northern Independence on the list of ‘Petty Things That Won’t Matter Because the AotD is Coming’ — you know, because who needs food to survive? And who the hell wants independence, anyway?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Moving right along, and holy mother, maiden and crone, this is getting long and I’ve barely scratched the first 15 minutes of the show!

You know what? Nevermind, I’m just gonna go ahead and publish this, and post the rest tomorow when I finish it — I know y’all are thirsty anyway. lol Forgive the sloppiness, as I did this ALL on mobile, and my paragraph breaks kept disappearing and arrrrrghh tumblr!

*Some gifs/images mine. The others were taken from google. Thanks if it’s yours!!

#got afterthoughts #got s8 #jonsa #political!jon #anti jonerys #anti targaryen restoration #anti daenerys #(not really but just being safe)#melissa rants #long post

309 notes · View notes

davidmann95 · 5 years

Note

Spidey’s leaving the MCU. Thoughts?

It’s been fascinating watching the discourse evolve in real time from “This is terrible” to “If you’re bummed about this it means you tacitly endorse Disney consuming all of culture” to “hey, Into The Spider-Verse somehow managed to escape Sony, so why should we think this will end up like their last 3 live-action Spider-Man movies that were clearly considered far higher-priority than that and treated as such just like this will be?” to “this is definitely all a negotiation tactic”. Given the last time word about a possible MCU-Sony deal pertaining to Spider-Man that Sony was cool on leaked the public outcry got them to turn around and make a deal within 3 months, I’m thinking the latter is probably more likely than not, but by no means guaranteed.

So in principle, in pure abstract principle, if it goes through, it doesn’t have to be a failure. Spider-Man being removed from the MCU doesn’t have that gigantic a reverberation through it because Spider-Man himself is a bit player in-universe, and even if I’ve been right and Norman Osborn was planned as the villain for a Secret Invasion/Dark Reign Phase 4 arc, he could easily be replaced with the likes of Ezekiel Stane. Far From Home could easily work as a final coming to terms with and farewell to those elements on Peter’s end, given one of its big messages ends up “don’t be Iron Man, be Spider-Man”; with him on the run and presumably disavowed by S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers, and Happy no longer seeing Aunt May, a third Spidey flick wouldn’t have to contort itself too horrifically to make internal sense as a direct sequel to the previous two without directly mentioning Stark or the other superheroes. The initial report says Jon Watts is staying onboard as director, and even if they want to shoehorn Venom in that could play out reasonably enough given, again, Peter’s on the run and would need to take what help he could get. Spider-Man and Venom vs. Kraven could be a perfectly decent movie without a single reference to Ant-Man. It could really even work *better* than way without having to wrestle with any involvement with the larger universe, or pressure to conform to house style.

In practice, if it happens, it’s probably going to be a fucking nightmare. The reasons for which are best represented by this guy:

Presumably even as we speak, devoted method actor Jared Leto is breaking into a bloodbank to greedily gobble up a pint of O negative previously bound for a children’s hospital in preparation for his performance as Morbius, the living vampire. Alongside Venom 2, whatever’s up with those Black Cat and/or Silver Sable movies, Sinister Six, and goddamn Nightwatch, ‘Sony’s Marvel Universe’ proceeds apace, and now they get to actually use the centerpiece character as they please to lend this all an air of legitimacy rather than desperate scrambling with a gaggle of hopeless D-listers. And does anyone - anyone - truly imagine Sony’s Spider-Man movie is going to be allowed to meaningfully center around anything but servicing the theoretical franchise? Because if so I want nothing more than to meet you and pick your brain to see how someone still believes in the inherent decency and dignity of man as powerfully as you, you sweet summer child.

So yeah, if this goes through it’s gonna be at best a deeply compromised movie in service of a bad idea. How does it all end up? I think in large part, it might actually lay in Tom Holland’s hands. Probably this is a dumb suggestion - there’s contracts and him probably wanting to ride out his biggest meal ticket and the studio egos that clearly played more of a role in this than money in the first place - but could Holland just threaten to walk if this goes through? Because this is a weird, specific situation where that threat would have tremendous leverage in a way it normally wouldn’t.

If Hugh Jackman had left halfway through Fox’s X-Men and they’d had to recast, or RDJ after Age of Ultron, that’d have been a tremendous blow to those series, but because it was a shared universe there still would have been all the surrounding major players and narrative architecture to let fans know it was the same thing they hopefully already liked. If Holland leaves however, it’s not that Spider-Man Disney set up for them anymore. Without the connection to the MCU, his face would be basically the one remaining major signifier to the public (sorry MJ/Ned, I’m talking Captain America-level ‘major’) that this is the Spider-Man they already really liked to the tune of a billion dollars. If they have to recast it wouldn’t even matter whether or not they formally rebooted, because even if they continued directly from where Far From Home left off, to the world at large this immediately becomes just another Amazing-style cash grab not affiliated with anything they like, an X-Men/DCEU second-tier super-franchise and one that screwed them out of better Avengers movies down the line to boot, and Sony would loose…hundreds of millions, I imagine? So yeah, leverage. And if Holland realized he had it and has an agent or manager or whatever who gives decent advice I have to imagine he’d use it: worst-case scenario they boot him, he goes out on a high note and already has other projects lined up like Uncharted rather than lashing his burgeoning career and reputation to a sinking ship. Best-case he gets more Avengers paydays plus substantially higher-grossing solo movies after all.

So as I see it, four potential outcomes, in what I’d consider order of likelihood:

1. This is all grandstanding and everything’s gonna be back to normal next month.

2. Holland stays, Spider-Man: Homeless performs substantially below what Sony was somehow hoping for in spite of everybody’s best efforts because these are the same genius producers behind Amazing plus now the mastermind behind X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and it returns to Marvel with its tail between its legs in time for Peter Parker to swing into Avengers 6 and ask where everybody was when he was getting framed for mass murder.

3. Holland threatens to bail, factions within Sony realize how much they stand to lose here by severing the rebuilt positive public association that’s the entire basis for how they think they can make this work - without that they’re back at square one where they reached out to Marvel in the first place - cooler heads prevail and a new deal is struck.

4. Holland’s bluff is called or the idiots who wanted this in the first place can him of their own accord because they think they can and should make a complete fresh start work. A new Spider-Man is cast, and while realistically the movies blow there’s less pressure to reverse this due to the cleaner break; unless there’s a boda-fide total flop Spidey remains out of the MCU’s grasp for the foreseeable future. Until Disney just flat-out buys Sony, to be clear.

So I think pretty much however you slice it this ends with Spider-Man still in the mix, albeit he may be going on hiatus from the big leagues for a bit; there’s some poetic irony there about him leaving just as the FF and X-Men arrive, the MCU stymied at the last from finally getting all their IP under one umbrella. Though I don’t know that I’d exactly count this as any sort of anti-corporate victory when either way Disney still gets all other Spider-Man stuff and merch sales that any movies will still drive, and either way Sony gets Spider-Man filmwise, so the only major outcome is we just might be stuck with shittier movies. A somewhat serious question if it goes through though: would all future editions of Infinity War have to have Holland edited out of the box art because they’re not allowed to advertise Spider-Man anymore, and likewise Iron Man scrubbed from the covers for Homecoming? Will reissuings of Homecoming/Far From Home have to have the MCU precredits montage taken out (meaning no more orchestral reaction of the 60s theme in them!)? I guess Disney has some experience in this sort of area with Who Framed Roger Rabbit so they’ll have protocols, but presumably when they lay it out to the head of Sony he’ll laugh at Marvel for having the hubris to try and advise them or thinking they have any say on the matter, and then turn around and immediately step on a rake.

#Spider Man #MCU #Tom Holland #Sony Pictures #Opinion

47 notes · View notes

hopelesstvaddict · 5 years

Note

Hi do you think jonsa was only d&d creations because they have romanticised other pairs as compared to their book counterpart? Do you think Sansa will able to soothe the beast in Jon in books after Resurrection or jonsa happening in book?

Hi !

To he honest I kind of doubt that D&D came up themselves with Jonsa given what we know about them and the image they project regarding the quality of their story. However I'm not one to dismiss people like that just because their creation is flawed.

There are things they indeed created for the show but it was always based on something from the books they wanted to adapt (characters like Talisa for example) So if indeed they created Jonsa it was based on something from the books. I don't think they intentionally set them up romantically - although the amount of tropes and imagery pertaining to romance is a bit puzzling - but they did build up their relationship at least on a siblings level, that's for sure. So that means that in the books, Jonsa is meant to happen at least on a siblings level. Jon and Sansa are meant to reunite at some point and they will likely wage war together to retake Winterfell. So their relationship will be explored in the books as well on some level. That is a certainty now. Now the question is on which level.

By this point in the books Jon has died and the show has confirmed he's going to be resurrected. Now in the show Sansa arrives at the Wall pretty much soon after whereas in the books she is still in the Vale so it's possible Jon leaves the Wall and they meet up elsewhere or Jon stays and she arrives later. But they will meet up. Show!Jon was upset and shaken with his death and resurrection but we all agree that it will be more violent for Book!Jon given the magical aspects that the show eluded. If Jon indeed survives because he wargs into Ghost then yeah it's possible that Sansa will help Jon find himself again. But that is already a given in my opinion. I can't see the point of reuniting a wild Jon with his long lost sister if it's not to give him a purpose again. On this, the show has already adapted its own version with Sansa giving Jon a reason to live and to fight again. A more literal example - though I don't know if it was intentional or not - is when Jon beats Ramsey to death but stops short when he sees Sansa. The crew has already commented on this scene and the fact that Jon has lost his humanity there and become a beast/monster. Sansa stops that. She gives Jon back his humanity.

Now if we're talking Jonsa in romantic terms that's another thing. There's enough foreshadowing in the books to support the theory and enough context to see why it would make sense for the overall story. There's also enough visuals now in the show to logically and legitimately think that they support what transpires in the books. But given what we know about D&D it kind of jeopardizes everything because we can't be sure they did this and that on purpose or just got lucky. It seems weird that all these scenes that could be read romantically were all kept in but we can't put it past D&D to have let them in and not realized it was setting a potential romance they did not intend. Perhaps they just reused romantic shots that worked for a woman and a man before - Robb/Talisa, Jon/Ygritte, Jaime/Brienne, Sam/Gilly (yeah that's pretty much all the couples) - that they liked and used them for Jon/Sansa without realizing that Jon and Sansa weren't supposed to be a couple. Oops. But then if we're going that way why not use the same shots for Jon/Daenerys? Oops.

Basically since the show ended like it did, with only the big main storylines finished but all the details and subtleties left out, the speculation can go on. Martin has said the show and the books would roughly have the same general ending. That means that in the books Jon will also team up with Daenerys and that it will end in disaster. That much is confirmed. What the show didn't really conclude are the characters' personal wishes. The journeys, they did finish but at the cost of their life dreams. Or rather it left it open-ended. Sansa's dreams of marriage and motherhood are now left for her future. Jon's dream of a peaceful life is now left for his future. I believe the books will be more complete in that regard especially with Sansa whose storyline basically revolves around marriages and the suffering that stems from each of them before she (temporarily) sheds it to fight for the North. If we're talking about a satisfying ending, she's meant to marry for love and experience a happy motherhood while also leading the North politically and ending up Queen in the North. Or a combination of these. But it would be a bit anti climactic if she completely abandoned those dreams of having a husband and children. The show did not state that she did set those wishes aside, it just implied that she would eventually do it later on.

One thing that the show did here in its ending is that it didn't close any doors. It left everything open. Fans have speculated for a long time who would be the final love interest of Jon and of Sansa. We know now that Dany is not it for Jon. And fans have agreed that Sansa's final partner is not going to be a random character. In the books, she's paired off with pretty much all important male characters - Sandor, Tyrion, Robyn, Theon, Harry the Heir... The show either refused to acknowledge the importance of these relationships or flatly benched them by having the guy killed or Sansa concluding the relationship on her own terms. And proceeded to present ONE relationship that defines Sansa's storylines for the final three seasons. ONE. That hasn't even happened in the books. If Tyrion or Harry or Sandor was the one for Sansa, surely Martin would have told D&D. We can't really be sure that D&D didn't write themselves into a corner and decided that they would diverge on this aspect but in my opinion, Martin told them Sansa's defining relationship would be Jon. Perhaps I'm giving D&D too much credit but I dont think they are the morons the fandom want them so desperately to be. Sure their writing is a bit on the wall and they are things they could have done better. But they ARE writers and producers and they do know how to do things. Maybe they did indeed rush things in the end. But they do know how to write romance - Robb/Talisa, Jon/Ygritte - and they are capable of planting seeds leading up to a big reveal - the Red Wedding for example. Earlier seasons and episodes like Baelor, The Battle of the Bastards, The Winds of Winter are proofs they can do great things if they want. Their script for the series finale was light, yes, but the visual result wasn't and we know that unscripted moments were kept in. These include Jon/Sansa scenes that do nothing to shoot down the relationship whether romantically or not. The directors were D&D themselves and they chose to keep these in. Coming from two guys who, per basically everyone's admission from the cast to the various directors, have exactly in mind what they want to see and won't easily let improvisation or something else than their own vision creep into the final montage, that's kind of huge.

Add all of these with Harington's acting choices. This, we can't really count as a definitive argument for Jonsa. Maybe its just the chemistry he shares with Turner. Maybe that's how they are in real life, maybe it was his own acting choice. But it is still strange that all of these scenes with double-entendre were all kept in by all these different directors/that no one picked up on it if they weren't meant to form an overall entity. And when you start piling up all of these, the acting choices, the sceneries, the unscripted additions, the foreshadowing in the books, all the parallels between Ned/Cat, the fact that Jon and Sansa have been built up for the last three seasons... it kind of becomes a bit big. What was left out really was just the culmination of it all. So that's why my opinion is that for some reason Martin asked them not to spoil everything and just do the strict minimum to complete the general storyline. Maybe in the end it will also amount to nothing. But then it will be really hard to explain.

TLDR : in any case, no I dont think that D&D intentionally created Jonsa, they merely followed Martin's guidelines for the upcoming books. Meaning that strictly on a siblings level, Jonsa will happen in the books. It's a given that Sansa's presence will help Jon especially if he has a problem with his humanity in light of his resurrection. A romance between the two is definitely still on the cards and in any case they will still fare better than Jon and Daenerys in the end.

This got long as I expected. Thanks for the ask !

#jonsa #jon x sansa #sansa stark #jon snow #got #game of thrones #game of thrones analysis #game of thrones meta #game of thrones thoughts #got analysis #got thoughts #got meta #actuallyjonsa #sansa stark meta #jon snow meta #kit harington #sophie turner

38 notes · View notes

spidercakes · 5 years

Note

Starker for 002 in the ask thing if you wouldn't mind dear author 💜 -StarkerBrain3000

002 | send me a ship and I will tell you:

when of if I started shipping it.

Hard to pinpoint. I saw it probably just after Civil War for the first time, thought ‘hmm’ and then watched the massive backlash to it appear. Never paid much attention to it, though, mostly because starker didn’t sit in any of my inner circle of blogs I follow at the time, so most of it was peripheral and given the weird amount of hate Tony’s character got I already only followed hella select blogs in the MCU fandom.

I got way more into the ship about 3 months ago though. Went on a reading binge and then made this blog. I’m not sure why it happened to be when it was, but I’m already established as a fic writer elsewhere and felt a bit burnt out. This pairing has been like a nice vacation because I like producing content for it and this is a surprisingly interactive fandom? The most interactive I’ve ever dealt with anyway.

my thoughts:

Good lord people on this site take shipping and fiction in general way too seriously. Don’t get me wrong, I live and breath social justice- I have a gender studies degree- its a big part of my life. But antis seem to fundamentally misunderstand how fiction affects reality and how reality affects fiction. They remind me a lot of anti porn feminists in the 70′s claiming that porn made men violent towards women when that’s A- not definitively proven even now and B- you don’t watch an hour long porn flick and become a misogynist, you were already misogynistic and then the porn reaffirmed your shitty values, and the shitty treatment of women in the porn was because misogyny already existed in mainstream culture and was thus included in the porn. Which is generally how fiction affecting reality works- something preexisting in the culture is reinforced by mainstream media and then reabsorbed by the audience, which is why people can watch slashers without you know, turning into one.

And the fact that antis remind me of that particular group of feminists doesn’t leave me with a high opinion of them really. They lack a lot of critical thinking skills, don’t even seem to understand how fan fiction works also, and they also keep redefining the definition of pedophilia for... fuck knows what reason because it sure shit isn’t to help victims of actual CSA. They’re irritating at best and absolute hypocrites at worst- like who the hell says ‘save the children, kill yourself’ and thinks that’s actually acceptable?

As for the ship itself I’ve always preferred AUs, and this pairing is no exception though I’d never actually write it in canon. Canon sideways maybe, but it’d have to be pretty sideways for me to consider it. Plus I find it more fun to make my own sandbox to play in rather than the writers of the MCU’s box. I’ve already seen them in that setting, I want to play with them in new settings lol. That said I’ve not written much of this pairing before so its all new stuff and this particular fandom offers new tropes to play around with! That’s what had me most excited walking into the fandom, the way people toyed with the characters.

What makes me happy about them:

The unique dynamic they have- I’ve always been drawn to characters who have an interesting dynamic. Plus Tony Stark is one of my fav characters in anything anyway and I ship him with almost everyone (minus Pepper, no hate to Pepper!). I figure that’s why this ship came about too- Tony is interesting and well drawn out as a character, and I loved Tom Holland’s Spidey. He’s the best who’s had the character in my opinion so pairing them together was probably something inevitable. Other than that I like the way the fandom toys with their characters- not always in character, but still a lot of fun to read and imagine!

What makes me sad about them:

Well, half of them are dead, so...

things done in fanfic that annoys me:

Good god, daddy kink. Its not even that I find it annoying, its just that its a hell of a squick for me so its difficult to find something that doesn’t include that and surprise daddy kink is not where I’m at as a person. Granted most people warn for it, which I’m grateful for, but it does permeate the fandom in a way that makes it a pain in the ass to find something I want. And honestly that’s really only it, and its more of a personal preference (seriously, no hate to anyone who likes that- you’re clearly all in good company lol, its just not for me) than an actual annoyance.

things I look for in fanfic:

I’m really picky about how I like Tony written. I’ve been writing the character for years now and fell into my own habits with him, though I do get pretty consistent compliments on how I write him so I’ll assume I do an okay job. But the result is that I have a hard time when people write him in ways I don’t like or wouldn’t write myself. Sometimes its just random squicks that pop up in a story, or sometimes I outright dislike the way he’s written. That said I do find that the starker fandom does the things I hate with Tony’s characterization in fic much less.

This, I think, is primarily due to the fact that he’s made the more dominant one in the relationship always (and people treating top/bottom like its a fucking dominance thing is something that annoys me in general mostly because its built on the misogynistic idea that being penetrated is being dominated but also because sex positions aren’t a fucking personality trait but I digress). As per my previous rant I don’t care for the idea of the ‘top’ being the dominating one based on that alone, but I do like that people writing Tony in that way reduces the amount of Wuss Tony fics in the fandom. Actually, I don’t think I’ve read a single one like that. Its my Number One I Hate That in other MCU pairings, making Tony some weak little waif in need of protecting. Though I gotta admit I don’t care for Peter in that position either- clearly he’s capable and able, please don’t turn him into the wuss. Bonus points if everyone thinks he’s soft but then oh no he’s actually dangerous shit lmao.

Still though, my pickiness over how the character is written can sometimes hinder my ability to enjoy a fic.

My kinks:

Bro finding an entire fandom who likes feminizing dudes if fucking mint. I have my issues with the term, but I do feel men get the ass end of the stick when it comes to aesthetics and the easiest solution is to stick them in aesthetically pleasing shit and if that’s women’s clothing and lingerie so be it lmao. I also like the kind of gender bending that goes on in that too, I find it subversive in a way that doesn’t need to be spoken aloud if I want to swing it that way, or flat out more pleasing to imagine. Seriously, men’s clothing is boring as fuck so skirts? I’m here for it. Though I wish there was more fem!Tony stuff in the starker fandom- its actually something I write a lot of when I write him in other pairings (particularly winteriron).

Other than that I’m a big fan of anything sensation play related. So ice play, things fucking about with heat, sometimes electric play stuff, taking away someone’s senses (blind folds, bondage, blocking out hearing in some way- that type of thing). Things like feathers are nice too. I’m also fond of gags, preference for ball gags or impromptu cleave gags. Theoretically soft dom stuff though I will never understand why bondage is considered not terribly kinky. I know a lot of people are into it but the idea of trusting someone enough to tie me up and actually listen if I decide I want out of it? I have too many trust issues to relate lmao. But it does make for a good bit of fiction as I’m sure some of you have noticed in my writing (given that I do love to write some kinky stuff). If you want something sex related specifically for whatever reason public sex gets my goat, not sure why because if I were a random passerby I’d be pretty fucking annoyed at the people in the bathroom but hey, whatever floats your boat on the page, right lmao.

I’ve thought about some more extreme things too, knife play and toying with things like fear being two of those things. But I’d have to have the right opportunity and context to work them in.

Who I’d be comfortable them ending up with, if not each other:

Well, Tony is dead so. I would have preferred him with literally anyone but Pepper though. He literally had more romantic chemistry with Rhodey (who I do incidentally ship him with). But the MCU is bunch of cowards so clearly they would never end up together. But they’d make a better pairing than him and Pepper, in my opinion.

Peter I’m fine with him being with MJ, I like them together on screen and I really like her character. If not her than Ned would also be a good pairing for him!

My happily ever after for them:

Well we gunna have to unkill some people but that’s what fanfic is for, right? Beyond that because I prefer AUs so much their happily ever after will depend entirely upon what universe I’ve imagined up for them :)

#spider answers

4 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Julie Herrada, Letters to the Unabomber: A Case Study and Some Reflections, 28 Archive Issues: J Midwest Archives Conference 1 (2003)

Abstract

When the University of Michigan's Special Collections Library acquired the papers of a high-profile person, the standard procedures involving acquisition of archival collections were found to be lacking. This article traces the events leading up to the acquisition of the Ted Kaczynski Papers: detailing the process of negotiating a deed of gift agreement, resolving privacy issues, processing the collection and making it accessible, dealing with the media and a very curious public, handling the administration's concerns, and responding to outside inquiries about the acquisition, as well as practical and theoretical matters affecting the management of controversial and contemporary archival collections.

In April 1996, Theodore John Kaczynski was arrested and charged with being the infamous Unabomber who, since 1978, had mailed or otherwise planted bombs targeting individuals working in the field of genetic engineering, and the airline, computer, and forestry industries. His bombs killed three people and injured 24. The Unabomber had successfully evaded the authorities for nearly 20 years. His manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," was published in The Washington Post just a few weeks before his arrest.

For several months during that year, I, along with much of the rest of the country, watched in eerie fascination the story of the lone outsider who had eluded the authorities for so long as he carried out his bombing campaign. As I read the media coverage about the evidence piling up against Kaczynski and the uproar over the publication of the manifesto, I decided to ask him to donate his papers to the Labadie Collection' at the University of Michigan Library, little realizing what events this would set in motion.

Kaczynski's 35,000-word essay advocated the destruction of technological society before it destroys humanity and nature. The publication of the Unabomber manifesto and its ideas were greeted with a great deal of interest by the anarchist and left press such as Anarchy, Earth First, Fifth Estate, The Nation, and Z Magazine, as well as mainstream publications such as Time, The New Republic, and The New York Times. Kaczynski immediately became a media draw, with everyone wanting to get on the bandwagon by writing about him. Most mainstream journalists and reporters were eager to make names for themselves by publishing the latest "inside" stories or trying to get exclusive interviews. They sensationalized the stories, eager to boost their sales.

Kaczynski also attracted freelance journalists to the frenzy. Radical publications, how- ever, were more interested in analyzing and critiquing the ideas in the manifesto; many of their readers saw him as a modern-day personification of Ned Ludd, the fictional, nineteenth-century British machine breaker. To them, these were not original ideas: they were the same ones that had been discussed within the radical environmental and deep ecology movements since the 1980s. What came to be called "anti-tech" theory (also known as "green anarchism") is well represented in the Labadie Collection. Be- sides his theories, many radical writers also debated the validity of the Unabomber's tactics. The use of violence to overthrow the ruling system or extinguish enemies of the people has been extensively discussed in the radical press for well over a century, and Kaczynski was strongly criticized by some for using such methods. Many anarchists believe in nonviolence, since a basic premise of anarchism is to do nothing that will harm or impinge on the rights of others to live their lives as they choose. It is coercion they abhor. It is also true, though, that some anarchists have engaged in "propaganda by the deed" and, in efforts to prevent further attacks against the oppressed, have taken their beliefs several steps further. Just as with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz, some people were supportive of, or at least sympathetic to, Kaczynski's actions.

Since its inception, the Labadie Collection has had a policy of collecting retrospective as well as contemporary materials that document activists and radical movements throughout the world. In addition to anarchism, the collection's strengths include civil liberties, socialism, communism, American labor history, the Spanish Civil War, sexual freedom, the underground press, youth and student protest, and animal liberation. One of my tasks as curator is to continue documenting contemporary social protest such as the radical environmental, global justice, and peace movements. Like Agnes Inglis, the library's first curator (1924-1952), and Edward Weber, the second curator (1960-2000), I do this by keeping up with current social issues in the radical press and writing to activists and authors, asking them to donate their materials. Collecting materials not only about activism but by activists is one of the hallmarks of the Labadie.

The Labadie Collection, now part of the University of Michigan's Special Collections Library, is recognized today as one of the world's most comprehensive collections of materials documenting the history of anarchism and other radical movements. It is a valuable repository of materials used by a wide range of people, from noted scholars who travel there to do research to graduate and undergraduate students at the university and nearby colleges who use its holdings of current and noncurrent periodicals to study radical movements of the present and past. It is part of my job and my passion to ensure that that tradition continues.

Because of my own links with political activists and protest movements, I have been uniquely positioned to acquire new collections. My position in an academic library in some cases grants me a certain amount of carte blanche, while in other circles I am immediately suspect. Occasionally, I have-sometimes boldly, sometimes timidly- pursued the papers of some contentious and notorious, elusive and difficult characters, even people I would not want to meet in person, but that is the nature of collection development. Mostly, the donors I work with care deeply about the world and its people and that alone usually gives me an immediate rapport with them.

The Unabomber manifesto, in addition to diaries confiscated from Kaczynski's Montana cabin, were the type of writings acquired by the Labadie Collection from past radicals. There are no known writings of Czolgosz, but if there were, they would certainly belong in our collection. Letters of Russian anarchist Alexander Berkman, who attempted to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick in 1894 during the Homestead strike in Pittsburgh when Frick ordered his men to shoot striking steelworkers, are in the Labadie Collection. Berkman served 14 years in prison for that crime and, in 1919, during the Red Scare, was deported with Emma Goldman and many others. I do not wish to compare Kaczynski ideologically with either Berkman or Czolgosz: the times and methods are different, as were their targets. I mention them only since they all killed or attempted to kill those they believed were guilty of perpetrating heinous acts upon the exploited of the world.

Kaczynski's brother, David, upon reading the published manifesto in The Washing- ton Post, recognized the writing style and the ideas outlined in it as being very similar in nature to Ted's. The FBI lost no time in investigating Kaczynski and arrested him at his Montana cabin without incident. Subsequently, the manifesto has been published on the Internet, as well as in print, and translated into many languages, including Spanish, French, Italian, German, Greek, Turkish, Dutch, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, and Czech.

In February 1997, nearly a year after he was arrested, I wrote Kaczynski's attorney, Judy Clarke. It is always a little tricky writing to potential donors. Without knowing exactly what existed and what was available, I asked for everything, including manuscripts, journals, correspondence, photographs, and legal papers. Four months passed and one day I was surprised by a phone call from Clarke, stating, "Mr. Kaczynski is very interested." Clarke had shown a copy of my letter to Kaczynski. He said he would like more information about our library. It was apparent that, even though he earned his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan (and won the Sumner-Myers Award in 1967 for outstanding graduate thesis), he had never heard of the Labadie Collection, which is not unusual, especially for someone not studying in the social sciences.

If Kaczynski had not been arrested on suspicion of murder or had not been a notorious figure, I would still have been interested in acquiring his writings, which criticized technology and industrialization, and advocated nature and a return to a more primitive lifestyle, in essence, the kind of writings that oppose the status quo. This is documentation I interpret as being "socially relevant," to borrow Danielle Laberge's expression. 2 What I did not know at first was that Kaczynski had a fairly large following. For example, despite the antitechnology theme, there were many Web sites, such as Unapac (the Unabomber's political action committee) and electronic discussion groups such as <alt.fan.Unabomber> devoted to him. There were also a number of fans writing letters to him. The fact that we must be able to hypothesize about the needs of future researchers is a well-established part of the appraisal process. In so doing, we have the opportunity to unlock secrets. We can heed the call to document the ways in which people are formed in our society as well as the ways those people have shaped our values as a society.

I wrote a second letter to Judy Clarke, including in it the information she requested. Before long, I received my first letter from Ted Kaczynski. With his name and prison number from the so-called "SuperMax" Federal Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, neatly printed in the upper left corner of the envelope, it arrived in our department from the library's mailroom with a frank question from the person who delivered it: "Is this for real?" A large manila envelope stuffed with correspondence accompanied the letter. It was six pages long and also neatly printed. The correspondence consisted of letters to Kaczynski since his arrest; they were mostly from people he did not know. We did not yet have a formal deed of gift agreement, or even an informal one. His letter explained that he was not allowed to keep more than 20 letters in his cell and, rather than risk having them confiscated and destroyed, he sent them to me for safekeeping until there was a formal arrangement. He acknowledged the possibility that I would not want to keep this kind of material, but was offering me the option before the prison authorities made the decision for me. This was my introduction to Ted Kaczynski. I found his first letter to be candid, explanatory, direct, and unambiguous. This set the tone for the rest of our communication. Kaczynski did not ask any personal questions about me and kept his communication strictly confined to the business at hand, which was to reach a formal agreement as soon as possible regarding the disposition of his papers.

This would prove much more difficult than I anticipated. As our communication progressed, I realized he was extremely concerned with the potential misuse of the collection and wished to place what I considered unreasonable demands on its accessibility, such as restricting it to "serious scholars only." He was particularly concerned with keeping journalists from using it.

We have a standard Deed of Gift form that every donor signs. For most donations it includes all necessary information. This form was far from adequate for negotiating Kaczynski's gift. When he asked us to draw up a deed of gift that placed restrictions on some of his materials, I explained to him that we would not discriminate among users: it was our policy to allow everyone equal access to the collection. He reluctantly agreed. The problem then was the amount of time his restrictions would remain, "the year 2020 or his death, whichever comes later," that would have placed a minimum closure of 22 years on the collection. The only materials he wanted to make available immediately, without closure or redaction, were letters to him that were either anonymous or from the media. These misgivings about the media were at the basis of his desire to keep most of the collection closed. Since his notoriety began, he developed such a disdain for anyone connected to the media and others he perceived as trying to exploit him that he either ignored their letters or answered them with sarcasm; sometimes he was even hostile. In his replies to almost everyone else, he was friendly, congenial, witty, and at times even charming.

Although the Special Collections Library does not have an official policy on length of closure, like most institutions, we discourage any restrictions but are willing to negotiate depending on the circumstances. Kaczynski certainly tested our boundaries. With- out knowing exactly what he was trying to conceal from the public, it was difficult to understand his reasoning. As one who does not trust much in the mainstream news, I sympathized with his sense of being misrepresented by the media, yet I could not in good conscience agree to close the collection for such a long period without understanding why.

Without a formal deed of gift, I was reluctant to open any of the materials he sent, apart from the letters he wrote directly to me. On the other hand, I did not want to risk losing the materials completely to the prison authorities, so I quietly stored them, unopened, in the boxes in which they arrived and continued with the negotiations. I even asked the mailroom workers not to mention to anyone that I was receiving mail from Kaczynski.

When Kaczynski asked that we seal parts of the collection for 20 years after his death, I immediately rejected the request, citing SANs Code of Ethics and our own policy. I gently urged him to reconsider. He then outlined a series of options from which we could choose, creating a classification system based on levels of accessibility. He seemed extremely worried about privacy issues, not so much his own, because by then he was accustomed to intense media exposure, but that of the correspondents who wrote to him. Although he referred to some of the people writing to him as "kooks" and "lonely women," he was still concerned about their privacy.

A further consideration of ours was that the media would find out about the donation before we were prepared to announce it. The university administration was already very nervous about the collection, since some of the Unabomber's victims still lived in the Ann Arbor area. The administration did not want to appear insensitive, nor did they want to open themselves up to increased negative publicity. (There was a high-profile negligence case against the university going on simultaneously.) For the first time in my career, I was at the mercy of the university's general counsel and the provost to negotiate for a new donation. I had spoken to my department head before soliciting materials from Kaczynski; she was very supportive, remaining so throughout the process. But from her superiors I felt some resentment that I had taken it upon myself to seek this donation. They told me that, since Kaczynski's attorney was involved, our attorneys should also be involved. My heart sank. I knew then this was not going to be easy. Until then, I had been communicating well with Kaczynski. We both had our ideas about how the collection should be handled, and we were openly discussing the issues, working to achieve compromises. I know he appreciated my honesty and, by conveying to him the ethical standards by which I was motivated, I was earning his trust. I was, however, disturbed by some of the stories I was hearing about him in the media and I was doing my best to stay detached. I tried to see his perspective as a prisoner with few resources at hand and almost no control over the negotiations for the placement of his papers, not to mention his legal affairs, which included possibly facing the death penalty, certainly a life sentence at the very least. I was determined to treat him with the same respect and consideration I would give to any donor. When the administration got involved, I began to realize the process could break down at any time and that would be the end of it. The power I had was wrested from me, and all my hard work was in jeopardy.

The university attorneys requested copies of all my correspondence with Kaczynski. This was another privacy issue altogether. As in most institutions, our donor correspondence is confidential. I had a choice in the matter: I could have refused. Because I was technically acting as an agent of the university when I wrote those letters, the result of such a refusal may have halted negotiations, or at least stalled them indefinitely. I also did not want to make trouble for my supervisor, who was still very much on my side. In addition, having known from the beginning that my letters were read by prison authorities and could potentially be reviewed by university administration as well, I always kept my correspondence with Kaczynski on a strictly business level. My priority was the swift execution of the deed of gift, rather than the protection of my own privacy, so I handed the letters over to the general counsel.

After a series of letters and drafts of deed of gift agreements, an official one was finally signed on July 10, 1999. Although we had decided not to make a formal announcement about the donation, I knew the story would break soon, so I accessioned the collection and immediately began the processing.

At first I thought Kaczynski's privacy concerns about the letters peculiar, but once I had a chance to read them, I was instantly struck by their personal nature. Coupled with the media's attraction to the story, I sensed a dangerous mixture. Hundreds of people from all over the world were writing to the Unabomber following his arrest. The letters covered a wide range of topics, from mathematics to the environment, philosophy to physical or mental illness, depression, and family and job issues. Many wrote as if they were old friends, discussing their personal problems. Each one found some level at which to connect with this man, whom they only knew from sensationalized reports on television or in the newspaper. Some knew of him through the radical press. It was astonishing to me to see the variety of people he touched: housewives, academics, teen- agers, grandmothers, secretaries, anarchists, journalists, scientists, survivalists, writers, artists, mental health professionals, college students, teachers, and environmental activists, in addition to many women who were interested in initiating romantic involvement. Even though correspondence between inmates was not allowed, other prisoners wrote to him, delivering mail through underground prison channels.

As I read through the letters, I was struck with various emotions: sadness, compassion, and pity, and I began to see what Kaczynski saw in these letters. Waves of despondency crept over me for weeks. I struggled with the sense that these letters represented but a microcosm of the people in our society. They wrote on perfumed paper, colored paper, decoupage paper, anonymous postcards, business letterhead, and frayed-at-the-edges notebook pages. Some were very well educated, others barely literate. They sent photographs of themselves, their gardens, and breathtaking scenery. There were many bright and normal people, as well as some seemingly unstable ones, who were merely curious about the intellect and personality of the man known as the Unabomber. A few people sent complex mathematical equations; some simply wanted an autograph. Many offered prayers and salvation. Others expressed their love of nature, their fear of technology, and their alienation. Several people wanted to know what it was like for him in prison, or how he had lived on the outside. Some of the letters were genuinely fan letters. In this age of constant discussion and debate about how to manage electronic records, this collection is unique in that it is all on paper; in fact, some people writing to the Unabomber apologize to him for typing rather than handwriting their letters based on their assumption that, because he is critical of technology, he disapproves of typed letters. Others printed articles from the Web and mailed them to him, seemingly un- aware of the inherent irony. That there was such a mix of people and ideas did not change the fact that probably none of the people ever imagined their letters would end up in the archives of a public institution. This is what I was grappling with. I even lost sleep over it. Although I had no idea what I would end up with when I asked for Kaczynski's papers, I was now in the difficult position of being responsible for people's privacy, at the same time making a professional pledge not only to care for these materials but to make them available to the public.

My gut reaction was to close this collection for a long time. I had never dealt with a collection so varied, so personal, and so contemporary. I was genuinely worried about the letter writers. I knew that their messages were being read and possibly copied by the prison authorities, and one could assume they also knew this. What they did not know was that I was reading their letters and intending to make sure that many others read them as well. Suddenly, I felt worse than a voyeur. Of course, it was not the first time in my career that I felt I was intruding on something very private, but this time the feeling was much stronger than ever before, partly because these letters had been written within the past two years. The writers were still around, some of them still corresponding with Kaczynski. I felt the weight of the world was on my shoulders. I felt like giving all the letters back. I certainly did not feel entitled to them.

One of Kaczynski's early suggestions was to black out the names and other identifying features of the authors. Initially, this seemed like a bad idea to me, mainly because of the work involved. We discussed other options such as closing the collection but, given the youth of many of the writers, a reasonable time of closure would not have protected their privacy for very long. Fifty years might do it, but anything less was risky. This would have made no sense and would have violated our own policy of non-closure. There are no hard and fast rules governing the privacy of third parties in archival collections, only guidelines and professional ethics. Typically, archivists prefer not to see restrictions on use because restrictions can inhibit research. The contents of the letters to Kaczynski were of potential interest to researchers, but the names of the writers were irrelevant except to the press, and the press was my major concern. Kaczynski and I discussed these issues at length. I consulted with trusted colleagues. I researched the policies of other institutions. I interpreted the SAA's Code of Ethics.

The letters to the Unabomber were a surprise to me but are a useful element in understanding our society and, after several weeks of research and meetings and discussion and soul searching, I was finally convinced that the content of the letters was very much worth keeping intact. These letters certainly meet Laberge's definition of "socially relevant"; however, revealing the names of the writers served no ethical research purpose and, indeed, in many cases would be an invasion of privacy and could seriously harm the author. One could guess that even if some of them signed their letters, they would want their names kept out of the public eye.

The decision to redact the names from the letters to protect the privacy of the third parties had another result. Third parties retain their copyright (currently, life plus 70 years). Making the names of the writers inaccessible means that no user can seek permission from a writer to quote from or publish any of the letters. One exception to this is letters written by people already in the public eye: their names are not redacted since they are not allowed the same rights to privacy as private individuals. These public figures have been, for the most part, media personalities who have written to Kaczynski in the hopes of procuring an exclusive interview.

Eventually, the media found out about the donation. They began calling. For the first time in my life, I felt I was being forced into the public spotlight and I did not like it. I was able to fend most of them off at first, giving them very little information and telling them that the processing of the collection was expected to take six months and that until that time I could not tell them anything about the papers. That worked with most of them, but some reporters were so aggressive that I began to find Kaczynski's contempt for the media justifiable.

Given the expectations of the donor and the media and the sense that this would be a popular collection, I knew it would require immediate access. The processing took a full six months. I hired an excellent archival student to do most of the work of redacting the initial four and a half linear feet of correspondence. By this time, I had read many of the letters and was certain about what needed to be done. We were preserving the originals but wanted to conceal names, addresses, phone numbers, and sometimes place names for added protection. Envelopes and photographs of people were not copied but were stored with the original letters. The process was very time-consuming; however, it was the only precise method we found. Each letter had to be read thoroughly to catch any possible reference that might lead to an individual. I certainly do not recommend this method for every sensitive collection. This is an issue that must be carefully thought through and discussed with responsible parties. Relying on your instincts and training as a professional is also an essential tool.

Early in our negotiations in an effort to assemble a more complete record, I asked Kaczynski to send me carbon copies of his own correspondence. He complied. He can read and write German, Russian, and Spanish, so he has international correspondents as well (although he is now prohibited from corresponding in Russian since the prison authorities cannot properly screen Russian-language materials). All his incoming and outgoing letters are read and possibly photocopied by the prison authorities. There are now over seven hundred different correspondents.

We considered creating a special permission form in addition to our regular Application for the Use of Manuscript Material. My experience with the media reinforced my decision to black out the names in the letters. It also convinced me that a special form would not prevent cunning reporters from doing what we were trying to prevent, since permission forms are not legally binding. In addition, there was no need for such a form if we were going to conceal the names. The way the media descended like vultures upon me and anyone else who was in any way associated with Kaczynski was nothing less than barbaric. Once the collection was processed, I could not keep the media out. One local reporter, after an hour's interview, wrote a fair, honest article, even allowing me to review it prior to publication. Everyone else was not only unprofessional but simply looking for a way to disgrace me. An on-line radio talk show host even asked if I considered Kaczynski "attractive." I had the choice not to talk to reporters but I thought this might be worse for me and for the university. Being direct and firm seemed to be my best defense against the onslaught.

Even though several years have passed since the story of the collection became public, every six months or so I get call from a magazine or newspaper reporter wanting to do another article on the papers. The story has been covered in many newspapers across the world, including one in Russia, for which I was interviewed by E-mail. Sometimes,

in order to fend off unwanted attention, I remind them that the story has already been covered many times. A few years ago there was a brief flurry of negative publicity about this collection when a conservative radio talk-show host urged his listeners to call the university library and complain about the fact that we were "glorifying" Kaczynski by placing his letters on display (we had not done this). The library's public relations unit requested that I not speak to anyone in the media about this issue and that I refer all calls to them or to the university's News and Information Office. I had a mixed reaction to this, feeling somewhat censored, but overall I admit I was relieved to let someone else handle the calls.

In 1998, Kaczynski pled guilty to murder charges in exchange for a life sentence. He then began an appeals process, asserting that he was forced to plead guilty because his lawyers, in an attempt to avoid the death penalty, insisted on presenting evidence that would have portrayed him as mentally ill. He also appealed on the grounds that the court would not allow him to act as his own lawyer. He represented himself in his brief to the Supreme Court. On March 18, 2002, his final appeal was denied. Since he has exhausted all his legal channels, he is now sending me the court documents related to his case. The collection now spans nearly 20 linear feet and is still growing.

Part of what is interesting and relevant about Kaczynski is that his views on technology are antithetical to an archivist's work setting, especially my own, given the University of Michigan's reputation for being at the forefront of technological innovation. As Hans Booms believes, archivists cannot "separate [ourselves] from the socio-historical conditions of our existence." 3 The technological movement is part of our social context, making it difficult though not impossible to be critical of it. Part of what attracted me to the archival profession in the late 1980s was the scarcity of computers within it. The joke is on me. I still love what I do, despite the fact that technology increasingly dominates much of my archival work. I have resigned myself to the modem methodology and have accepted the role of technology in it.

Kaczynski is in the tradition of those Americans who have been outspoken in their rejection of technology and modernity in their lives, from Thoreau to Scott Nearing. Kaczynski is unique, however, for the methods he employed to make his views known. Also, it is slightly ironic that just as Jo Labadie donated his radical papers to the University of Michigan in 1911 to balance its conservative philosophy so, in 1999, Ted Kaczynski's papers ended up there despite the university's overwhelming commitment to technology.

The fact that I have experience with contemporary and controversial donors puts me in a smaller category of archivists. But if we are to have more complete records documenting social history, this category needs to grow. I would very much like to share this responsibility. Historical societies and other institutions documenting local history should be collecting materials relevant to their communities, especially if they are controversial. These materials may otherwise be destroyed or discarded out of shame, embarrassment, fear, or misunderstanding. If we, as keepers of history, collect and protect only what is appealing, socially acceptable, or politically correct, we are hardly doing our jobs. In his article "Mind Over Matter," Terry Cook reminds us that:

... In any appraisal model, it is thus important to remember the people who slip through the cracks of society. In western countries, for example, the democratic consensus is often a white, male, capitalist one, and marginalized groups not forming part of that consensus or empowered by it are reflected poorly (if at all) in the programmes of public institutions. The voice of such marginalized groups may only be heard (and thus documented)-aside from chance survival of scattered private papers-through their interaction with such institutions and hence the archivist must listen carefully to make sure these voices are heard.4

Because I am now publicly connected to the Unabomber, people dealing with similar collections call on me. Two years ago, I received a phone call from a representative regarding the placement of Timothy McVeigh's fan mail and last year I was consulted about the placement of papers and artifacts belonging to the Branch Davidians. In both cases, I spoke with an intermediary. I took heart when each of them conveyed the deep concerns of the donors that the materials be protected and made available. McVeigh even had legal documents drawn up prior to his execution that detailed his wishes for preservation of and access to his letters. I did not have to tell these people how important the collections are: they already knew.

It is also important to think about which institution can best care for the materials. Large and well-funded archives have prestige and can appeal to prospective donors, but smaller, local archives, museums, and historical societies are often more accessible and geographically more desirable. I am a strong proponent of collections being properly geographically placed, close to the point of their creation and accessible to the most users. I could argue that Kaczynski has ties to the University of Michigan and, there- fore, his papers belong there, but he also has ties to Berkeley, Chicago, and Montana. And nothing in the papers is connected to the time he spent in Ann Arbor, Berkeley, or Chicago. Montana seems to be the closest geographic connection. Being properly cared for and cared about, however, is fundamental. The Branch Davidians's collection most assuredly belongs in Texas; it stands to reason that the McVeigh letters belong in Oklahoma City, but the people of Oklahoma City might disagree with that.

I cannot stress enough the value in collecting contemporary materials. Booms says the appraisal process should include a study of the major events of the times in which the collections were created.5 That is easy if we are already living in those times. We have ready access to most current debates and controversies regardless of which side we personally take. We might be appalled and bewildered by some of the events of our era, but we have the resources, the social values, the context, and the perspective to thoroughly document them. Society's reactions to events are just as important as the events themselves. I think about a letter written by Agnes Inglis in 1928, when she was feeling overwhelmed by her work in the Labadie Collection:

... It takes time and constant interest and effort. I realize I have to stay on the job. But sometimes I find it rather hard to do, for after all, that has all been lived. It's wonderful historically but lacks one's present day heart beats. I have to have a life besides.6

In his article, "Keeping Archives as a Social and Political Activity," Booms's focus is on appraisal of older documents but, if he had discussed contemporary documents, his argument surely would have followed that archivists are best able to chronicle those collections in which their own social values are summoned.7 Recently, I have been collecting materials related to the current antiwar movement. These materials are mainly in the form of flyers, buttons, and posters. That the largest antiwar movement in history has been organized across the world to include radicals, liberals, and mainstreamers is truly a historical occurrence. It comforts me to see and touch it, the tangible evidence of a mass movement of social protest, to know that it is being saved, and that, generations from now, people will acknowledge the work we have done and study the materials we had the foresight to preserve from our own time. The better we document our society's transformations, the better we will be able to learn from those transformations.

Another good reason to collect contemporary documents is that archivists are often stuck with collections that someone else first had the opportunity to rifle through. The best time to collect is not years or decades later, after who knows how many hands have touched them, but as soon after their creation as is feasible. Regardless of what those materials consist of, we all know this task of sorting and weeding is best left up to the archivist during the appraisal process.

Frank Boles correctly asserts that we must educate the public about the importance of collecting controversial materials. 8 This can be done in many ways, the least of which can be to educate them in general about archives: what they are and how they can benefit society. One of the simplest ways is to utilize the resources that are the most accessible. It is true, as Boles states, that "Reporters understand the archivist's view- point regarding the acquisition of controversial material much better than the general public." 9 Reporters also understand (and are often motivated by) the general public's attraction to scandal and tabloid news. The public will not be educated about the value of archives overnight. It is a gradual process; the more archival collections make it into the news, the more people will become accustomed to the ideals we have been putting forth.

It is possible that some patrons or donors or members of the general public may criticize you and your institution for obtaining certain collections. Some prospective donors may even change their minds about giving their materials to you. This again is where education and diplomacy become important. You may not be able to please everyone with your explanations, but placing your mission statement ahead of their attempts to dictate your collection development policy will be liberating in more ways than one. And, like it or not, this is how we get attention in our profession. A little controversy about our collections is better than whitewashing social history.

We are fortunate to be in a profession for which we have a passion and a calling. It may not be a lucrative one, especially these days when most of our cultural and educational institutions are under serious financial strain, but it is a profession that we do not have to worry about being moved to a developing country in order for a corporation to reap more profits. We will always have the responsibility to practice good ethics and to collect, preserve, and make accessible the papers and records and artifacts of underrepresented communities, unpopular individuals or groups, and marginalized movements. The FBI should not be trusted as the only organization to collect these materials. Their motives are singular, making their methods much different from our own. We are a richer society for the things from the past we have managed to save, but we have a long way to go in overcoming our prejudices, our biases, our snobbery, and our fears.

Footnotes

The Labadie Collection is named for Joseph Antoine Labadie, who was born in 1850, in the back- woods of Paw Paw, Michigan. His father, a wandering free spirit, taught his eldest son the ways of the frontier and introduced him to the life and language of the native Pottawatami tribes living nearby. With almost no formal education, Jo was trilingual, speaking the native French and English of his family and learning Pottawatami from his neighbors. In his teens, he was trained in the printing trade and went on the road as a tramp printer, working in print shops throughout Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, joining typographical unions everywhere he went. This experience gave Jo a class consciousness that would stay with him the rest of his life. He became a labor union organizer and an anarchist. By the turn of the century, he had amassed a large collection of correspondence, essays, poetry, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, photographs, broadsides, leaflets, badges, and other materials, and wanted to make sure it was preserved and made available for research. In 1911, despite several offers from the University of Wisconsin, he chose to donate it to the University of Michigan because he wanted it to remain close to his home but also because he felt his collection would give the conservative Michigan institution some much needed balance.

Danielle Laberge, "Information, Knowledge, and Rights: The Preservation of Archives as a Political and Social Issue," Archivaria25 (1987-1988).

Hans Booms, "Society and the Formation of a Documentary Heritage: Issues in the Appraisal of Archival Sources," Archivaria24 (1987): 74.

Terry Cook, "Mind Over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal," The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor, ed. Barbara L. Craig (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992).

Hans Booms, "Oberlieferungsbildung: Keeping Archives as a Social and PoliticalActivity," Archivaria 33 (1991-1992): 31.

Agnes Inglis, letter to Jo Labadie, 6 September 1928, Joseph Labadie Papers, Labadie Collection.

Booms, "Uberlieferungsbildung."

Frank Boles, "Just a Bunch of Bigots: A Case Study in the Acquisition of Controversial Material," Archival Issues 19:1 (1994).

Boles, 60.

#case study #political violence #unabomber #psyche #ted kaczynski #correspondence #technology #law #deviants #anti-technology #rebels

2 notes · View notes

rocknrollbodhisattva · 6 years

Text

The Paranormal and the Sitcom: A So Weird & Girl Meets World Crossover Essay

Inspired by @fi-phillips | @thats-so-weird | @boymeetsworldconfessions | @rilaya | @rileymatthews-xo

Introduction

From 1999 to 2001, Zoog Disney aired a paranormal show named So Weird, the Disney version of the X-Files. Micheal Jacobs revived Boy Meets World with a continuation called Girl Meets World. On the surface So Weird and Girl Meets World have nothing in common. The former show filmed in Canada, the latter was filmed in California. Cooksney and Jacobs couldn't be more different, Jacobs is known for comedic sitcoms like My Two Dads, John Astole and producer Jon Cooksney, focused on speculative fiction. Astole worked on Stargate, and the 1980s Twilight Zone revivals. Disney Channel hosting their television shows is their only commonalities so far. What made these programs successful was pushing Disney's Astole limits on what considered acceptable. As a result, So Weird was the darkest show Disney Channel aired where Girl Meets World was one of the smarter television shows of modern Disney Channel. Audiences don't think of Disney tackling death acceptance, religion, or feminism

Fiona "Fi" Philips (Cara DeLizia) along with her older brother Jack, join their mother Molly Phillips (Makenzie (Phillips) on her comeback tour. Having a Rockstar mom isn't easy, especially when evil spirits begin stalking Fiona. When Annie (Alexz Johnson) arrives a paranormal panther follows suit. Riley Matthews (Rowen Blanchard) along with her best friend Maya Hart (Sabrina Carpenter) continue the lessons her father learned almost Boy Meets World. At six years old I loved stories about hauntings and dark creatures, so, So Weird naturally appealed to me. Nostalgia over Boy Meets World influenced my decision to watch its sequel and the quality of it surprised me. This cross-over essay's purpose is dissecting these shows popularity and their similarities rather than their differences.

Surface Similarities & Differences

At the surface level SW and GMW's similarities are minor., Fi Phillips and Riley Matthews are our brunette primary protagonists; Annie Thelon and Maya Hart are our blonde secondary protagonists. Fandoms hated Annie and Riley because they interfered with the fandoms' favorites then subsequently blamed for the lackluster third seasons. Celebrities Carpenter and Johnzon used their shows as advertisement for their music careers. Actually Disney gave Carpenter a record deal before casting her as Maya. Carpenter is talented but still sounds like a Disney pop star, however, Johnson has more experience. SW had better music because there was a larger variety of genres like Rock, Pop, Blues, and Celtic music. SW alluded to Celtic and Greek mythology like changelings and sirens. GMW alluded to BMW and nothing else like Cory and Shawn's jellybean scene. Both shows had actors who appeared in crime shows including Carpenter and Eric von Detten.*1

What else SW and GMW had in common was that they had realistic friendships and family dynamics. Friendships weren't used as problem-solving devices but to deepen the characters. Jack (Patrick Lewis) and Clu (Eric von Detten) hung out because they wanted to not because the plot required them to. Parents were written as people. Molly struggled with widowhood and had goals outside of being a mother. Irene felt inferior to her younger sister and Ned Bell was a biker before he married Irene. In addition, Cory taught History yet offered fatherly advice to his daughter and her friends. Single mother, Katy, struggled with her part-time job and caring for Maya. As siblings, Jack/Fi and Riley/Auggie neither fought constantly nor always got along. 'Singularity' Jack and Fi do nothing but argue but in 'Medium' Jack uses "colourful language" when a psychic angers Fi. In GMW, Riley and Auggie argued in 'Forgiveness' then have a touching moment in 'Christmas Maya.' When writing only children Jacobs and Astole never relied on only child stereotypes instead showing the complexity of being one. Not to mention, as an only child myself, I loved this. Maya and Annie weren't spoiled were confused over siblings concepts, like sharing. Trapped in endless detention, Annie's confused by Jack standoffishness finding out that he falsely believes that Annie's replacing his sister. After assuring him that was never her intention, she and Jack become friends. Likewise, Maya confuses Rucas' (Riley/ Lucas) relationship with that of a brother-sister one because she doesn't understand how siblings act. Siblings are loving and friendly but also bicker like Lucaya (Maya/Lucas). Eventually, they develop sibling dynamics with other characters, Annie/Jack and Maya/Lucas.

Neither show's focus was on romance. SW focused on family while GMW focused on friendship and love interests didn't appear in more than one episode. Jack's girlfriend, Gabe, appeared in 'Angel.' Ryan was Fi's first kiss in 'Second Generation' and GMW had two date episodes. 'Brother' was about Cory and Topanga's date night; 'First Date' was about Lucas and Riley first kiss. If romance wasn't plot important then why did GMW develop a shipping war while SW was immune to such disputes? In comparison to GMW, SW had limited couple options meaning there weren't many options before couples became slash or incestuous Those options are: Annie and Fi with either Clu or Carrey. GMW avoids this pitfall with a diverse amount of characters but started shipping wars by introducing the leads and love interest simultaneously. Fanon favourites were Jack/Annie, Carrey/Molly, Lucas/Maya despite the intended couples are Cory/Topanga, Riley/Lucas, and Fi/Clu.

Why did Anti-Annie fans hate her less than Anti-Riley fans? Again, the fandom hated Riley more because of differences in character casting. If a Jerkass character is among the main cast the fandom automatically absolves them, giving their retribution to the kinder characters. Maya's the "broken bird" so fans will prefer her and discount Riley giving fans reason to pair Maya in a love-hate romance. For extra information on this, TvTropes offers an analysis using Nickelodeon television as examples. SW main characters aren't jerkasses toward their friends meaning Annie gets less hate and Friend-Lovers are on equal levels with Love-Hate ones.

Seekers: Fiona & Riley

Seekers of the 12 Archetypes are constantly searching for expanded knowledge of the world at large or themselves. Riley and Fi want to understand other people's perspectives in a worldly sense (Riley) and supernaturally (Fi). However both are open-minded toward unproven phenomenon as opposed to our blond protagonists who rather "go with the flow." Also as the primary protagonists they possess the most contradictions of their worlds. Fi's an amateur parapsychologist but wants a normal life to protect her family. ('Lightening Rod') Fi is a computer geek struggling academically but loves learning new subjects ('Tulpa', 'Escape', 'Vampire'). In comparison, Riley succeeds with her schoolwork but is naïve to the world around her. ('Pluto') She insecure often becoming victim to peer pressure but craves uniqueness away from her peers ('Popular', 'Jexica') Riley and Annie love feminine hobbies – makeup and shopping – but love masculine pursuits too. Both of them love the outdoors, athletics, but are terrible at sports. ('Ski Lodge' in GMW and 'Sacrifice' in SW) Riley can't make the cheerleading team but loves basketball; Fi fails at baseball but tries appreciates the sport. ('Singularity', 'Rah Rah') Contradictions make them rounded characters but causes internal conflict when they attempt to form a stable Ego.

Upon waking up in the middle of the night, Riley eavesdrops on her parents where she doubts if she's good enough compared to her parents. After all Topanga is a successful lawyer, Cory is a successful teacher, and have a perfect fairytale love. ('Cory & Topanga') Unable to connect with her father, Rick, Fi seeks resemblances between herself and him. Just like Riley's atelphobia, Fi feels disconnected from her family because of her paranormal interests. An example is 'Strange Geometry' where Fi feels betrayed that her mother kept Rick obsession a secret. Since Lucas doesn't differentiate between Riley and Maya during the love triangle, Riley further doubts her worth as a girlfriend. In the pilot and a deleted 'Upstate' scene, Riley molds herself into Maya so she'll have an identity. Constant identity searching is another aspect of the Seeker archetype.

Caretaking drives our protagonists to seek out the world's answers. Fi wants closure with her father yet her investigations aren't just for her benefit, but for the benefits of her loved ones. Molly's friends Rebecca left when she was Fi's age, thus Fi confronts Rebecca's "daughter" so Molly will have some closure of her own. Reluctantly, Fi leads the two of them to Rebecca's house where history repeated itself again; Rebecca's family disappeared again leaving Molly more betrayed and confused. 'In Forgiveness' Riley back talks to Kermit wanting answers as to why he left her best friend when she was younger. Town members become annoyed by Fi when she forces them to remember the alien invasion the day before. ('Memory') Fi helps a coma girl's mother and grandmother with technology to revive the girl from her coma even though these people are strangers to her. ('Lost') Riley invades her friends' boundaries so Maya will have hope ('Master Plan'), tries jumping into a bull pen to save Lucas ('Texas'), and keeps her friends in a stairwell so they'll reflect on their surroundings ('High School'). Fi challenges Bricriu to hangman so he'll stop possessing her brother. ('Will-o-Wisp') Riley gives up her relationship with Shawn, her godfather, so Maya will have a father. She forgets her affections for Lucas so Maya will have a chance at love. ('Texas', 'New Years') Occasionally their actions cause annoyance among their friends but its for the greater good. Sacrificing one's own desires is the key component in the Caretaker's goal.

Creators: Annie & Maya

Creators turn illusion into reality and similar to Seekers, Creators are invested self-identity and possibilities. When we're introduced to Annie and Maya both are immediately drawn to creative fields. By the ending of 'Lightening Rod', Annie confides in Fi that she's always had an eerie connection to music and find inspiration from something as insignificant as a stick. Furthermore, Mr and Mrs Thelon inform Molly that Annie has the ability to master most any instrument. 'In the Darkness', the theme song, shows Annie playing as well as popular instruments like the guitar. Maya gained that same artistic guidance from the stars or a paint war. ('Meets Boy', 'Upstate', 'Maya's Mother'). Partly due to Carpenter portrays her, Maya masters singing and guitar quite easily. ('1961', 'Creativity') An added bonus to Annie's is that they act as retrocognition from her past.

Both blondes quickly give up old lifestyles for chances at an art or singing career. For example, Annie's ecstatic she'll join Molly's band on tour, granted her parents reason this is so Annie will have a normal and balanced life. ('Lightening Rod') Impulsive, Future Maya leaps at the opportunity when she receives a SoHo gallery internship. ('Bay Window') Creators share the fear of not having an identity. When a recording agent steals Annie's voice and likewise when the art teacher grades Maya's painting as incomplete, the girls doubt their self-worth. In 'Carnival' Annie's reflections mock her abilities when she rescues her friends from an evil ringmaster. Season one Maya wonders if Riley was right and Maya's troubled past is responsible for her artistic ability. What's more is that the Creator archetype gives the character a dangerous duality; either they're practical with their art or they drown themselves in their disillusion. Which is why the Orphan archetype lurks beneath the Creator.

The Thelons and Hart families are alive but their actions produce an orphan effect on their daughters. Traveling across the globe before the So Weird eventsprohibitedestablishing permanent roots somewhere. Kermit's physical abandonment compounded with Katy's emotional abandonment ensured that Maya wouldn't have a support system. Although being an only child isn't problematic, not having someone to depend on made connecting with others difficult. Neither would form a real connection until they made surrogate families out of the Phillips and Matthews families. Its not surprising their friends would find them selfish at times.

Death Acceptance

The major difference between Cooksney and Jacobs is Cooskney never intended lessons for So Weird whereas Jacobs' moralizing hindered character development on Girl Meets World. Jacobs's lesson was the vague statement, "People Change People" I'd argue his actual moral is not taking people for instead. Cooksney's moral, if you could consider it one, was sacrifice. Fi gets lost camping and sacrifices immediate help to save Big Foot. ('Sacrifice') Barring those morals, the writers over-arcing themes of both were acceptance. SW's primary theme was death acceptance for the Phillips and Matthews family with the minor theme of childhood acceptance Annie) and Maya. All stories lead back to sex and death, Disney's not going to discuss sexuality, but death resounds through every film since Disney's inception. Also no SW or GMW character was exempt from death confrontation. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief: Anger, Sadness, Denial, Bargaining, and Acceptance aren't linear and one may never gain acceptance. All the characters are stuck in one of the stages and only Fi gains acceptance.

Earnest Becker's seven reasons why people fear death are as followed:

1. Fear of pain

2. Fear of not knowing what becomes of our bodies

3. How our dependents will manage after our death

4. How our loved ones will cope emotionally after our death

5. Fear of an afterlife, such as eternal oblivion, or Heaven/Hell

6. Fear of dying with an unlived life

7. Fear of dying with uncompleted projects

Thantophobia is why humans behave the way they do. Rick's untimely death when Fi was three-years-old affected her because she has no memories of her father. She often resented her brother and mother because they knew him and she did not. Rick/Fi's shared fear is emotionally coping of his death. Maya struggled with coping with the metaphorical death of her father, possibly thinking he's dead to her. Kermit intentionally abandoned his family, whereas Rick intended on returning to his family, but he didn't plan on evil spirits murdering him. Fi and Maya are stuck in the anger phase of grieving. When her grandfather is visited by a banshee, Fi tracks the creature down and asks Death personified the fairness in taking her father away from her. Death responds that it will even the imbalance by extending her grandfather's life for a time. But for seasons 1 and 2 Fi copes with death by actively seeking the paranormal afterlife to escape and accept death.

Jack's death phobia is similar to Fi's except he fears losing his sister and mother like he lost his father; his nightmare is a manifestation of that fear. In the midst of gang's lucid dream, Jack leaves them for a method to awaken from the dream but is transported to the night of Rick's. Dream Rick promises he'll return, but knowing the future Jack chases after his father. Fear trapped Jack in Grief's denial stage subsequently causing his resentment of the paranormal his dad loved so much. And it's not until 'Changeling' when Jack accepts his dad's death when he starts singing again. Surprised, Clu comments that Jack hadn't sung since Rick died. Jack responds with, "Well, maybe it's time I started again."

Minor episodes such as 'Fall' (SW) and 'Gravity' (GMW) discuss death on a smaller scale. 'Fall' details Ned and his childhood friend, Sam, on the death anniversary of their other friend's drowning. Haunted by the memory, Sam is literally haunted by Pete's ghost leading to Pete's recent. The men's responses to death are vastly different; Ned would rather forget Pete's death and Sam tries to confront it. Both are part of the grieving sequence but overall, 'Fall' discuses the myriad of complex emotions after death. Childhood deaths are rightly considered "Bad Deaths" whether or not loved ones are complicit with the death, we often feel that we could've prevented it. Sam is stuck in the bargaining and grieving stages before he can move on. As the men relive that fateful day admits he was scared of dying and can finally accept death now. In 'Gravity' the teens are crushed when a beloved bakery owner dies leaving the bakery to Topanga. The episode ends with Auggie opening his gift with a note reading "It's not My-Kranian bakery, I'm dead." Cory phones telling him that he is glad Feeney isn't dead, perhaps this was an allusion to 'I Dream of Feeney' when Cory wished him ill. Riley gives the eulogy and everyone learns to cherish their loved ones while they're alive.

Next is Molly and her death phobia in the series. Molly's emotions toward her husband are erratic in all three seasons. It's been over a decade since Rick's death and she still hasn't accepted it. In the Christmas episode 'Fountain' Molly admits to a young Fi that her loss bothers her. In 'Medium' Molly began to resent Rick's memory because she felt haunted by him wishing that she could forget him. Molly misses being a lover but is guilt-ridden because she feels like she is betraying her husband. ('Fathom') And in season 3's 'Muse,' Molly and the band travel to the town of their first concert to recapture the inspiration she felt there. Molly never gains acceptance over death and I loved that this option was shown as well. Not everything is wrapped up in a happy ending.

The final lesson is accepting your own death. Self-death may be literal like the episodes 'Rebecca', 'James Garr', 'Angel' or 'Grave Mistake'. Or death can be metaphorical like Riley becoming new personas, Maya losing herself, or the death of love. The former episodes dealt with the concept of immortality and coming to terms with one's final moments. Fi investigates a girl claiming to be Rebecca's daughter in truth, she's Rebecca herself. Amazed at how much this immortal girl knows and has seen in her years, Rebecca refutes this saying that she hates her immortality. She can never marry, she had to leave Molly, her only friend, behind. Who wants to live forever? 'James Garr' is about the titular character undergo cryonic preservation as a cancer cure. The procedure's successful, but James Gar hasn't a soul anymore with this realization he gives his life to an elderly patient Jack met. In the subplot that elderly man dying of cancer beleives that whenever death comes for him he will greet death with willingness and bravery. James Garr realizing his hollow life switch places with the man so he can live a little longer. 'Grave Mistake' is about a family friend of the family who's been receiving death threats and runs to Annie and the Phillips for help. With Annie's guidance, the woman discovers her dead husband wrote "You're dead" so that she'd remember she died. It's rare that a children's show relays the message that death isn't ominous, it's part of life.

During an interview Cooksney admitted that if Disney had allowed them to, Fi would descend into Hell to rescue her father's soul.*2 Jack would have discovered his past life as a Celtic knight who begged that his next incarnation would be as Fi's older brother. Moreover, it explains that dragon's fear of Jack in 'Strangling' and aside from familial bonds, knight life explains his overprotection of him mom from a mermaid siren. ('Fathom') A tenet of the Order of the Good Death's death positivity is "I believe that my open, honest advocacy around death can make a difference, and can change culture." Cooksney probably didn't intend for SW to have so much death focus but it's applicable to the show.

'Yearbook', 'Triangle', and 'Ski Lodge' are examples of metaphorical death. Whenever Riley embraces different personas, she's undergoing an Ego Death in an attempt to discover her true self. She becomes a Goth Girl so her classmates visualize her shadow side. Contrary to her masquerade, Riley's shadow side isn't Goth but is a metaphor of her dark side coexisting with her light side. Maya lost herself during her dalliance with Lucas to understand her relationship identity contrasting he singular identity. Later on during the love triangle's conclusion, Riley's first comment is "This love triangle needs to die. Nature knows that it needs to die." Of all her friends Riley mentions death the most, examples are 'Yearbook', 'Gravity', and 'Pluto.' Continuing with this death theme involve the teenagers' fantasies as a metaphor for the death of their romance. During their respective daydreams, Riley and Maya inform each other that their dream romance isn't reality. In Dream Riley's fantasy she dies, in essence, the girls kill their ego and their romances to grow.

Childhood Acceptance

Transforming themselves from childhood trauma are Annie and Maya's ultimate goals within the series. Annie's panther and Maya's hope are key in reaching their transformations. For this essay portion, I'm using Widow's Walk', 'Pen Pal', and 'Annie's Song.' For Maya's episodes, I'll use are 'World of Terror 3', 'Forgiveness', and 'Goodbye.'

Symbolically the panther represents the death-rebirth cycle and confronting fears. According to Spirit Animal's website, those with the panther guide are blessed with powerful protectors. In addition, panthers indicate supernatural journeys with occult leanings. Therefore her character's introduction served a purpose in So Weird despite being unplanned. Finally as Annie's panther endows her with strength to confront any obstacle before her.

'Widow's Walk' acts as a transition between death acceptance into childhood acceptance. Tired of her age limiting her privileges Annie swaps ages with an elderly woman. Shocked by her transformation she finds a bottled message from the woman's husband. Desperate for her youth back Annie begs the woman to reverse their ages. Selfishly, the woman refuses due to her thinking that her husband's waiting for her at home not realizing he died in sea storm that turned the woman into a widow. Growing weaker daily Annie knows if she can't convince the woman of the truth she will die. When Annie feints in an attempt to reach the woman and true to its nature, Annie's panther appears at her side giving her strength to continue on. Obviously Annie's successful getting her age back. What's interesting are the contradictions between the elderly woman and Annie. Both characters fear death desperately clinging to life, but Annie's aware of death while the woman would rather delude herself of human mortality. At the climax the women's remorseful of her selfishness wishing she knew how to reverse her wish. Annie's regrets her wish understanding living in the present is better than living in living in the future.

Similarly 'World of Terror' along with 'Pen Pal' shows the girls' adolescence if their positive influences were absent in their lives. By befriending Jennifer and not meeting Riley, Annie and Maya become rebellious Goths. Maya no longer believes that she deserves good things; Annie pushes her friends away. Following this change, Alternate Annie's panther is a worthless tattoo, Alternate Maya begins bulling Riley for not letting her in her bedroom. . Deprived of hope or understanding our alternates protagonists cannot accept their pasts. Being Disney, these girls defeat their alternates. Annie through using her panther power, Maya through befriending Riley in the parallel universe.

These last three deal with Maya and Annie discovering the truth and making amends with their childhoods. In 'Forgiveness' Maya writes and letter to her father, Kermit, in an attempt to forgive him as part of Cory's homework assignment. That following day Kermit returns to town hoping what his daughter said in her letter was true. Unable to forgive Kermit, he leaves once more reducing Maya to tears. As a result Maya realizes she's forgiven herself for believing she had caused Kermit's departure. By forgiving herself, Maya's ability to accept her past and find a new father figure in Shawn Hunter when he adopts her in 'Goodbye.'

In the penultimate episode the characters travel to a Native American reservation as a break from touring. Unlike her friends Annie can't enjoy her day off with strange flashbacks coming to mind. Coyote possesses the tribe's leader when a little girl becomes lost in the forest, forcing Annie to remember her childhood memories. Years earlier the Thelon family visited a jungle for a research assignment, little Annie awakens before her parents do and wanders into the forests. She happens across a petrified tribal man and it's only when a poisonous snake attacks her she realizes the danger she's in. As her parents discover their daughter's disappeared, the man rushes her to his village in an attempt to save her life. With shaman magic, the man's father removes the venom and takes Annie to a location where her parents will find her. Grateful Annie sacrificed her life to save his son, the father promises to protect her all her life in the form of a panther. With full understanding of her childhood, Annie manages to accept her past as Maya did.

Conclusion

Girl Meets World and So Weird are different shows catering to wildly different audiences. Still, each character follows similar archetypes as well as themes people wouldn't expect of Disney Channel to allow on their network. More importantly, the fact that it does shows its capability to portray mature, darker subject matters for all audiences. Readers may disagree with my argument but these are shows the current generation should watch. Girl Meets World is a television show that my generation should watch. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my essay and I would love it if you gave me your opinions on each program, as well.

End Notes

*1 – Many Disney Channel actors starred in Law & Order: SVU episodes. Von Detten, Carpenter, and Kimberly Jean Brown as examples were in that Law & Order spinoff. Someone even wrote a crossover fanfic of GMW and SVU. If a fan theorist could invent a theory that Disney and any crime universe are connected I would be ecstatic.

*2 – Walt Disney has had hell landscape stories since the 1930s. Silly Symphonies' 'Goddess of Spring' had Satan-Hades drag Persephone to Hell. Fantasia ended with the song 'Night on Bald Mountain' where Demon Satan tortures souls only stopped when Holy light/God intervenes. Frollo damns Esmerelda to Hell if he can't possess her and little mentions God and Satan. (Hunchback of Notre Dame) CoCo takes place primarily in the afterlife. Disney Channel could've done a Hell episode.

Links

www . orderofthegooddeath resources / death-positive-movement

so-weird . proboards

Disney . wikia wiki / So_Weird

www . youtube user / OrderoftheGoodDeath (Ask A Mortician)

www . youtube user / littlemissfuneral (Little Miss Funeral)

www . youtube user / UnderTheKnifeShow (Under the Knife)

www . fanfiction s / 6178294 / 1/Love-As-True-As-Time

www . fanfiction s / 6067416/1 / An-Ultimate-Hey-Arnold-Essay

www . spiritanimal . info / panther-spirit-animal /

post / 125280313440 / so-weirdgirl-meets-world-parallels-these-are-my (SW & GMW)

#so weird #girl meets world #mine #fi phillips #annie thelen #alexz johnson #cara delizia #maya hart #sabrina carpenter #riley matthews #rowen blanchard #disney #disney channel #the disney channel #comment leave notes #reblog

25 notes · View notes